Manchester City Council

Decisions

Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Decisions published

11/09/2019 - Minutes ref: 345    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting on 24 July 2019.


11/09/2019 - Decisions from the GMCA meeting on 26 July 2019 ref: 357    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

To note the decisions made by the GMCA at its meeting on 26 July 2019.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - HS2 Design Refinement Consultation Response ref: 356    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To note the proposed refinements in Manchester in the HS2 Design Refinement Consultation.

 

2.         To note the City Council’s submission of a response to the consultation.

 

Wards affected: Ardwick; Burnage; Didsbury East; Didsbury West; Fallowfield; Levenshulme; Northenden; Piccadilly; Rusholme; Woodhouse Park;


11/09/2019 - Implementing "Tell Us Once" ref: 353    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

That Manchester City Council enter into an agreement with the DWP to implement the Tell Us Once initiative in the city.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - Oxford Road Corridor Strategic Regeneration Framework Guidance ref: 355    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To note the outcome of the public consultation on the draft Strategic Regeneration Framework Guidance for the Oxford Road Corridor area.

 

2.         To approve the draft Strategic Regeneration Framework Guidance including proposed amendments in response to the consultation and request that the Planning and Highways Committee take the Framework into account as a material consideration when considering planning applications for the four sites covered by the SRFG.

 

3.         To agree land in Council ownership will be used to support the SRFG as opportunities are brought forward.

 

Wards affected: Ardwick; Deansgate; Hulme;


11/09/2019 - Manchester Science Park Strategic Regeneration Framework Update ref: 354    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To note the outcome of the public consultation on the draft updated Strategic Regeneration Framework for Manchester Science Park.

 

2.         To approve the draft updated Strategic Regeneration Framework for Manchester Science Park, and request that the Planning and Highways Committee take the Framework into account as a material consideration when considering planning applications for the site.

 

Wards affected: Deansgate; Hulme;


11/09/2019 - Council Tax Support Scheme - Treatment of Windrush Compensation Scheme payments ref: 352    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

To approve the proposal to reduce the liability of a liable person for Council Tax under section 13 A (1) (c) of the Local Government Finance Act for people receiving payments from the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - Capital Programme Update ref: 350    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To recommend that the Council approve the following changes to Manchester City Council’s capital programme:

 

(a)        Neighbourhoods – Manchester Regional Arena – Indoor and Outdoor Athletics Track Replacement. A capital budget increase of £1.500m is requested, funded from Waterfall Fund.

 

(b)        Growth and Development – Acquisition of The Courtyard at Royal Mills. A capital budget virement of £1.850m is requested, funded by a transfer from the Eastern Gateway budget.

 

(c)        Public Sector Housing - Fire Risk Assessment work low rise properties. A capital budget virement of £6.606m is requested, funded by a transfer from Northwards Housing Programme budget.

 

(d)        Children’s Services - Expansion of Dean Trust Ardwick secondary school. A capital budget virement of £3.784m is requested, funded by a transfer from Unallocated Basic Need Grant budget.

 

2.         To approve the following changes to the City Council’s capital programme:

 

(e)        Private Sector Housing – Marginal Viability Fund – New Victoria. A capital budget increase of £0.426m is requested, funded by Government Grant (Housing Infrastructure Fund).

 

(f)        ICT – Liquid Logic Social Care System. A capital budget virement of £0.492m is requested from the ICT Investment Plan, funded by borrowing.

 

3.         To note increases to the programme of £0.351m as a result of delegated officer approvals.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - Delivering Manchester's Affordable Homes to 2025 ref: 351    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To note the increase in the forecast Residential Growth delivery target for new homes in Manchester from April 2015 to March 2025 of an additional 7,000 homes to 32,000 homes.

 

2.         To note the proposed increase in the delivery target between April 2015 and March 2025 from 5,000 Affordable Homes to a minimum of 6,400 Affordable Homes.

 

3.         To note the limited capacity of the Council’s Housing Revenue Account and the Council’s Housing Affordability Fund to support new additional Affordable Homes in the city and that significant new Affordable Home delivery in the city is dependent on robust partnership relationships with Registered Providers, which currently have the financial and delivery capacity to deliver those homes.

 

4.         To delegate authority to the Strategic Director - Growth and Development, and the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Executive Members for Finance and Resources and Housing and Regeneration to negotiate and formalise a strategic partnership with Homes England

 

5.         To delegate authority to the Deputy Chief Executive, Strategic Director - Growth and Development and Head of Development in consultation with the local ward councillors, the Leader, the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration, Executive Member for Finance and HR, and the Executive Member responsible for Corporate Property, to agree the disposal of sites in Council ownership for the provision of affordable homes as set out in the report.

 

6.         To delegate authority to the Strategic Director - Growth and Development and the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Executive Members for Finance and Resources and Housing and Regeneration, to establish partnership arrangements with Registered Providers together with their partners/consortium for defined areas in the North, Central, South and Wythenshawe areas of the City.

 

7.         To note progress against the Policy Ideas presented to Executive in the December paper by the Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration

 

8.         To delegate authority to the City Solicitor to enter into and complete all documents and agreements necessary to give effect to the recommendations in the report.

 

9.         To authorise the Head of Housing to explore with local Registered Providers (RPs) the draft principles on reacquiring former right-to-buy homes as set out in Annex 1 of the report, and to report to a future meeting.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - CCTV Code of Practice ref: 348    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

To approve the updated Manchester City Council CCTV Code of Practice.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - The House Project - Manchester's Leaving Care Service ref: 349    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To approve and endorse the adoption of the House Project and support the engagement of Strategic Housing with registered housing providers to ensure sufficient ‘stock and flow’ of suitable properties.

 

2.         To endorse the proposal to adopt the model and associated costs to ensure financial prudence; and to support the subsequent implementation plan.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - Manchester City Centre Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order ref: 347    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         Subject to (2) below, to authorise the City Solicitor to take all necessary steps to make the Order.

 

2.         If objections to the proposed order are received, to note that a further report will be brought to a future meeting setting out the objections, the Council's response thereto and the recommended course of action.

 

 

Wards affected: Deansgate; Piccadilly;


11/09/2019 - Developing a More Inclusive Economy - Our Manchester Industrial Strategy ref: 346    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

That the “Developing a More Inclusive Economy – Our Manchester Industrial Strategy” be adopted as the Council’s strategy.

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


11/09/2019 - Conditions of Employment and Grading of the Director of Population Health & Wellbeing ref: 344    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Personnel Committee

Made at meeting: 11/09/2019 - Personnel Committee

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 11/09/2019

Decision:

1.         To recommend to Council that the post of Director of Population Health & Wellbeing post is remunerated at Grade SS4 (£95,953 - £105,940) and assimilated to local government Chief Officer JNC terms and conditions of employment.

 

2.         To recommend to Council that the postholder be assimilated at the maximum point of SS4 (£105,940) to reflect both the current market rate for Directors of Public Health and to provide for a greater level of parity with other Manchester Health & Care Commissioning Executive Directors.

 

3.         To note that on the Manchester Health and Care Commissioning (MHCC) structure the title of the post holder is Executive Director Population Health, Nursing and Safeguarding MHCC to reflect the wider role within the MHCC partnership.

 

4.         To recommend that the Council notes and approves the intention of Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group (MCCG) to separately and independently make a direct additional payment of £5000 to the individual in respect of specific additional responsibilities that will be undertaken by the postholder on behalf of MCCG within the Manchester Health & Care Commissioning partnership. 

 


11/09/2019 - Developing a More Inclusive Economy - Our Manchester Industrial Strategy (Ref: 2019/08/07A) ref: 358    Recommendations Approved

·         To adopt Developing a More Inclusive Economy – Our Manchester Industrial Strategy on behalf of the city of Manchester.

 

Decision Maker: Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 20/09/2019

Decision:

Decision

 

That the “Developing a More Inclusive Economy – Our Manchester Industrial Strategy” be adopted as the Council’s strategy.

Lead officer: David Houliston


11/09/2019 - Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order 2019/07/19A ref: 359    Recommendations Approved

To confirm an Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order for the City of Manchester encompassing the Deansgate Ward, Piccadilly Ward, and parts of the Hulme Ward, Cheetham Ward, and Ancoats and Beswick Ward.

Decision Maker: Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 20/09/2019

Decision:

Decisions

 

1.         Subject to (2) below, to authorise the City Solicitor to take all necessary steps to make the Order.

 

2.         If objections to the proposed order are received, to note that a further report will be brought to a future meeting setting out the objections, the Council's response thereto and the recommended course of action.

Wards affected: Ancoats and Beswick; Cheetham; Deansgate; Hulme; Piccadilly;

Lead officer: Steve Robinson


11/09/2019 - CCTV Code of Practice 2018/12/18C ref: 343    Recommendations Approved

To approve the updated Manchester City Council CCTV Code of Practice.

Decision Maker: Executive

Decision published: 12/09/2019

Effective from: 20/09/2019

Decision:

Decision

 

To approve the updated Manchester City Council CCTV Code of Practice.

Lead officer: Fiona Ledden


30/07/2019 - Outstanding Audit Recommendations ref: 340    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 30/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 10/09/2019

Effective from: 30/07/2019

Decision:

Members considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer and Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management that informed the Committee that in accordance with Public Sector Internal Audit Standards the Head of Audit and Risk Management must “establish and maintain a system to monitor the disposition of results communicated to management; and a follow-up process to monitor and ensure that management actions have been effectively implemented or that senior management has accepted the risk of not taking action”.  For Manchester City Council this system included reporting to directors and their management teams, Strategic Management Team, Executive Members and Audit Committee.

 

The report summarised the current implementation position and arrangements for monitoring and reporting internal and external audit recommendations.

 

Decision

 

  1. To note the current process and position in respect of high priority Internal Audit recommendations.

 

  1. To agree that the scheduled date of the committee on 17 September 2019 be used for training purposes for committee members and any business be rescheduled for submission to the meeting of the Committee on 15 October 2019.

 

  1. To agree to request the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management to circulate guidance on Contractor and Whistleblowing Arrangements to all members of the Committee for information.

30/07/2019 - Internal Audit Assurance 2019/20 ref: 339    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 30/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 10/09/2019

Effective from: 30/07/2019

Decision:

Members considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer and Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management which provided the Committee that provided a summary of the audit work undertaken and opinions issued in the period April to June 2019.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

A member expressed concern in respect of the limited assurance given to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the continued delay in the completion of DoLS assessments. Officers were asked for a report to update the Committee on the action being taken to address and improve the current arrangements. Reference was also made to the audit of Our Manchester Voluntary and Community Sector Grants and the partnership working arrangement with the Voluntary Sector and the Council. The point was made that the monitoring information from grant recipients is being provided to the Council however, it was not clear how this was being acted upon if an issue was identified. Officers were asked if the recommendations that had been made were sufficient to address this concern. Officers were also asked for an explanation why, in view of the arrangements in place, had the audit of the prevention and detection of procurement fraud received a moderate assurance.

 

The committee was informed that DoLS is a challenging area of service and the national average duration for the completion of an assessment is 138 days. At a local level the average assessment completion time is 130 days and the concerns raised on this situation had resulted in an audit. Members were informed that the audit work is a key element of the improvement plan for the service. The Committee would also have the opportunity to question the Executive Member for Adult Health and Wellbeing and the Director of Adult Services at the meeting of the Committee in October 2019. In respect of the concerns raised regarding Manchester Voluntary and Community Sector Grants, it was reported that the audit report on the service had identified the lack of feedback to the voluntary sector. The report recommendations were made to address this matter and improve consistency of recording contact with the organisations, actions taken and the support provided to recipients. In response to the concern raised regarding the prevention and detection of procurement fraud. It was reported that the moderate assurance related to the areas of improvement required to improve prevention and detection of fraud through reporting and utilising data and intelligence of records of individual procurement activity.

 

A member referred to the changes made to the report format and questioned the process followed in undertaking this and the reason for the delay in providing executive members with audit reports.

 

It was reported that the audit report format will provide an executive summary including an opinion to identify key issues, areas for improvement, the timeframe. It would not include the action plan. Members were informed that audit reports were circulated to the members of the senior management team in advance of executive members to provide time to read the reports and be aware of any issues raised.

 

Decisions

 

  1. To note the report submitted.

 

  1. To note the comments received.

30/07/2019 - Work Programme and Recommendations Monitor ref: 341    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 30/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 10/09/2019

Effective from: 30/07/2019

Decision:

The report of the Governance and Scrutiny Support Unit which contained responses to previous recommendations was submitted for comment. Members were also invited to agree the Committee’s future work programme.  

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer reported that the Annual Local Government Ombudsman Compliant report would be scheduled on the Annual Work Programme.

 

Decisions

 

1. To agree the Work Programme subject to the above.

 

2. To note the Recommendation Monitor and the amendments proposed.


30/07/2019 - Annual Statement of Accounts ref: 338    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Audit Committee

Made at meeting: 30/07/2019 - Audit Committee

Decision published: 10/09/2019

Effective from: 30/07/2019

Decision:

Members considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer which sought Members approval of the revised accounts containing the amendments detailed in the report and to seek approval and acknowledgement of the letter of representation. These accounts were updated from those reported to the June Committee and took account of any changes that have arisen since that time including the findings of external audit.

 

The Committee received a paper containing revised changes to the Group Accounts. The changes would be subject to consideration by the external auditors before the opinion on the annual account was released.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer made a statement to the Committee regarding the annual accounts. The Committee was informed that nationally there have been some changes to how local authority external audits have been completed, this has included:  

·         The accelerated timescale for completing the audited accounts deadline set for 31 July.  

·         The Financial Reporting Council requirement for external audit firms to focus on areas where there are judgements and estimates, e.g. asset valuations and the additional assurance being sought in this area. 

·         The ‘McCLoud judgement’, which led to all local authorities having to get their accounting position for the pension fund (IAS19) recalculated at additional cost to take into account a potential additional liability relating to an age discrimination issue on the transitional arrangements in the judges and fire service pension scheme.  The LGPS is outside of this ruling but may be impacted in the future so an estimate of the additional liability was required. This has resulted in additional work. With reference to the Council’s accounts, this was not material and the accounts have not been adjusted.

Reference was made to a reduced capacity within external audit firms following the recent tender exercise and associated reduced fee. This reduction has impacted on a lot of local authorities and has been reported nationally. 

 

Locally this had translated into:

 

·         Changes to IAS19 (reporting on employee benefits) - these are not material and no adjustment has to be made.

·         The Council’s external auditors have had to significantly increase the sample size for valuations.  This was notified later on in the audit and the work to review these has not been fully completed prior to the latest revised accounts being issued.  In view of this, however, it is not believed there are any material issues outstanding, but this is subject to confirmation by the external auditors.

·         With regard to the Group Accounts - there is also an issue with the land valuations carried out in respect of the airport assets. This does not impact on the council's or the airports bottom line position, although some adjustments were required and included a restatement of prior year figures. A further adjustment was made, after the revised accounts were issued and confirmation is required.

 

The Committee were informed that there has been a great deal of pressure on the Finance Team to complete the outstanding work in time for the Council to meet the deadline and thanks were given to the Council Finance Team and the External Auditors for their hard work and dedication.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Members requested further explanation on:

 

  • Pension liability (£21.1 million) to the Council.
  • Accounting for valuations of Airport and Convention Centre land

 

Officers reported that the £21.1 million pension liability is a non-material and notional figure used for accounting purposes and is an estimate of potential future liability based on employer contribution to the pension funding scheme. The figure has not impact on the actual position of the pension fund or council accounts.

 

With reference to Airport and Convention Centre land it was reported that the figures presented in the Airport accounts for land and buildings is subject to an external valuation process to provide a notional ‘far value’ and bring the airport accounting process in line with the Council’s as required by the Local Authority Accounting Code. This process had resulted in a change to the figure presented. The Council owns the freehold on the airport and convention centre land and accounts for this. The other items owned by the Airport and the Convention Centre are included within the Group Accounts.

 

Members thanked the Finance Team and the External Auditors for their hard work in the completion of the Council’s annual accounts in view of the challenging deadline for their approval and publication.

 

The External Auditors informed the Committee that it was anticipated that there would be no further material issues to be considered and an opinion would be released, however it was necessary to complete the checks relating to the Group Account amendments. In addition, the were three issues outstanding relating to land and buildings valuations which were nearing completion.

 

Decisions

 

1. To note the amendments made to the annual accounts since they were reported to the Audit Committee in June.

 

2. Approve the revised annual accounts including the accounting policies contained within them.

 

3. Agree to not amend the pensions figures included in the accounts following the receipt of a revised IAS19 report as detailed in paragraph 17. This is below the materiality level.

 

4. Approve and acknowledge the letter of representation in Appendix 1, which will be signed by the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurerand the Chair of the Meeting.

 

5. To note the submission of the Group Account Amendments as at 30 July 2019 and that the amendments are subject to checking by the Council’s external auditor.

 

6. To note that in the event of any material changes being identified from the external auditors outstanding work, it may be necessary to arrange a meeting of the committee to agree changes to the annual accounts.

 

7. To thank officers of the Finance Team and the External Auditors for their work in the preparation and audit of the Council’s Annual Accounts.


24/07/2019 - Decisions from the Joint GMCA and AGMA Executive Board meeting on 28 June 2019 ref: 306    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

Decision

 

To note the decisions of the Joint GMCA and AGMA Executive Board meeting on 28 June 2019.

 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


24/07/2019 - Capital Programme Update ref: 304    For Determination

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

A report concerning requests to increase the capital programme was submitted. We agreed to recommend one change to the Council, and to make a four changes under delegated powers. These five changes would decrease the Council’s capital budget by £2.858m across 2019/20 to 2021/22.

 

Decisions

 

1.         To recommend that the Council approve the following change to Manchester City Council’s capital programme:

 

(a)  Highways – Hyde Road. A capital budget virement of £1.254m is requested, funded by a transfer from the Highways Investment Plan budget.

 

2.         Under powers delegated to the Executive, to approve the following changes to the City Council’s capital programme:

 

(b) Highways –Residents Parking Schemes (RPZ). A capital budget increase of £0.633m is requested, funded from External Contribution and Parking Reserve.

 

(c) ICT – Early Years and Education Implementation (EYES). A capital budget decrease of £2.248m is requested and approval of a corresponding transfer of £2.248m to the revenue budget, funded by capital fund.

 

(d) ICT – Telephony. A capital budget virement of £0.400m is requested, funded through a transfer from the ICT Investment Plan budget, alongside a capital budget decrease of £1.177m and approval of a corresponding transfer of £1.177m to the revenue budget, funded by capital fund.

 

(e) ICT – Planning, Licensing, Land Charges and Building Control Application. A capital budget decrease of £0.066m is requested and approval of a corresponding transfer of £0.066m to the revenue budget, funded by capital fund.

 

3.         To note increases to the programme of £0.757m as a result of delegated approvals.

 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


24/07/2019 - Revenue Budget Monitoring 2019/20 to the end of May 2019 ref: 303    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

A report was submitted to provide a summary of the position of the 2019/20 revenue budget at the end of May 2019. The report gave details of the projected variances to budgets, the position of the Housing Revenue Account, Council Tax and business rate collection, revised prudential borrowing indicators, and the state of the Council’s contingency funds. Projecting forward from the position at the end of May 2019 it was forecast that by the year-end in March 2020 the revenue budget would be overspent by £3.495m. The report explained that the projected overspend was predicted to mainly arise in the children and adult social care budgets. Costs for external residential placements for children were higher than predicted. In the adult social care budgets there was significant pressure in the in-house supported accommodation budgets and home care services. 

 

The report explained how each of the directorates was seeking to mitigate and address the budget pressures. The key risks would continue to be monitored and mitigations sought as required throughout 2019/20. The achievement of the approved savings targets would also be integral to this process and would continue to be closely monitored and reported throughout the year.

 

The report proposed a number of budget virements to reallocate funds between areas of the Council’s work. These were agreed:

·         £300k from Chief Executive Corporate Items to the cross-cutting savings budget in Corporate Core Directorate made up of savings of £150k due to additional annual leave purchased by staff and the introduction of a shared cost (salary sacrifice) model for the purchase of Pension Additional Voluntary Contributions; and

·         £560k from Cross cutting savings budget in Corporate Core Directorate to allocate across Directorates following the rationalisation of the senior management structures; and

·         £2.692m from the Youth Service budget from Children’s Services to Neighbourhood Services to reflect a change in reporting arrangements.

 

When setting the 2019/20 budget the Council has agreed to hold some funds for contingencies, and other money that was to be allocated throughout the year. The report proposed the use of some of these budgets to be allocated. These were agreed:

·         the release of £335K of non-pay inflation to enable the continued disposal of appropriate material at Redgate Holdings Ltd; and

·         the release of £5.084m to service budget for the 2019/20 annual pay award.

 

The report also addressed use of the Council’s reserves. It explained that the draw-down of £12K of reserves had been requested. This was approved:

·         £12k draw down from Transformational Challenge Reserve to support Manchester’s Fairtrade to promote Fairtrade in the city.

 

The report also explained that notification had been received in relation to specific external grants, the use of which had not confirmed as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process. Approval was given to the use of these funds:

·         Local Government Association Cyber Resilience phase 1 grant of £25k, to be allocated to ICT, to support cyber security training for staff

·         New Burdens funding of £85k to be allocated to Revenues and Benefits to fund additional temporary staffing resources.

 

It was noted that the report had also been considered at a meeting of the Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee meeting in July. The views of the Committee were noted (Minute RGSC/19/42).

 

Decisions

 

1.         To recommend that the Council approve the proposed virements over £0.5m as set out in paragraph 61 of the report.

 

2.         To approve the use of budgets to be allocated, the use of a reserve, the use of grants in addition to that already planned, and the three proposed virements, all as set out above.

 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


24/07/2019 - The Eastlands Regeneration Framework ref: 300    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

Councillor Richards declared a personal interest in this item as a member of the Board of One Manchester.

 

In March 2019 the Executive had considered a draft of the proposed Eastland Regeneration Framework and had endorsed the draft as the basis for public consultation (Minute Exe/19/35). The Strategic Director – Growth and Development now submitted a report on the outcome of the consultation and on the proposed amendments to the Framework document to take account of the matters that had been raised in the consultation.

 

The consultation had run from 31 May to 26 June 2019. Letters inviting people to a consultation event had been sent out to around 4,000 residential addresses, landowners, local businesses and residents’ groups in the area. The consultation events were also publicised using the Council’s social media accounts and in other local media. Other elements of the consultation activities had included a drop-in event for residents and local businesses on the 6 June 2019 at Beswick Library; a consultation page on the Council’s website which had provided details of the draft Framework and the opportunity to submit comments; and an email briefing to key public services and statutory providers and to local ward councillors.

 

The report also explained that SMG (the operators of the Manchester Arena) had confirmed that they had also conducted a campaign to raise awareness of the suggestion in the draft Eastlands Regeneration Framework for an events arena to be developed in Eastlands. SMG had commissioned a public relations agency, Fleishman Hillard Fishburn (FHF), to help raise awareness of the consultation period, the arena proposal and the impacts that might possibly have on the local communities. That awareness campaign had comprised:

               Canvassing at Eastlands ASDA on 14, 19, 20, 21 and 24 June;

               Distributing leaflets through door knocking in Miles Platting and the wider area on 19 June; and

               Distributing the leaflet to 5,700 households on 21 June across Clayton, West Bradford Road and Beswick.

 

The report explained that the SMG/FHF leaflet had encouraged people to respond directly to the Council through the website. The leaflet itself did not direct people to a copy of the draft Framework. SMG had indicated to the Council that FHF had communicated with in excess of 300 people at the ASDA and at least a further 150 through the door-to-door campaign through estates in Clayton, Miles Platting and Beswick.

 

The consultation had generated 1,445 unique responses onto the Council's website. Of those: 492 responses were assessed as coming from within the Eastlands Regeneration Framework area; 474 from other "M" postcodes; 355 from other Greater Manchester postcodes; 112 from outside Greater Manchester; and the remainder (12) had not given a postcode or location. The specific proposals for developing the land in and around the New Islington tram stop on Pollard Street had been responded to by way of an online petition on an external website that had been signed by more than 2,600 people. It was not known whether the people signing that online petition were residents of Manchester or elsewhere. The SMG/FHF awareness campaign had also resulted in 329 postcards being submitted.

 

The report examined the issues that had been raised by those responding to the consultation. At the meeting concerns were expressed that the SMG/FHF campaign had been potentially misleading and undertaken in such a way as to misrepresent the proposals in the draft Framework so as to try to generate local opposition to the possible inclusion in the Framework of the development of an entertainment events arena in the Etihad Campus area. Such a new arena venue would therefore potentially operate in competition with SMG’s existing arena venue in the city centre, giving the company a commercial interest in such proposals being resisted. The leaflet that had been distributed on SMG’s behalf had not made it clear that it was on behalf of a commercial operator with a possible conflicting interest. A copy of the leaflet was appended to the report. The report gave an example of how the leaflet had implied that the development of such an arena would be funded by the Council’s money, which was incorrect and therefore misleading. In the responses to the consultation it was evident that many of the residents had been misled by that, believing that the Council was intended to invest its money in developing a second arena at the Etihad Campus: something the residents had opposed. In truth, no such investment was being considered by the Council.

 

It was considered to be likely that many of the respondents to the consultation had been responding to the SMG/FHF material and not to the actual draft Framework document. The report explained that many of the concerns that had been raised by those who had responded were already explicitly addressed within the draft Framework. The issues of transportation to and from the Etihad Campus, traffic congestion, air pollution and the potential for car parking to become a significant neighbourhood issue had been raised as issues linked with a potential new large indoor arena. However, the draft Framework already included specific proposals and mitigations for each of those.

 

The report examined each of the key issues raised by the consultees and also the matters raised by the organisations that had responded. The report set out the Council’s response to each of those, highlighting where the draft Framework document was to be amended to take the outcome of the consultation into account. A copy of that draft Framework was appended to the report.

 

A number of city-centre commercial organisations had also responded including SMG, the operator of the Manchester Arena; MJV, a company involved in the running of the Arndale; DTZ, and the owner of the Printworks leisure complex. The report detailed the matters that had been raised by each of the significant city-centre respondents, including the potential that a new leisure destination in Eastlands could have a significant adverse impact on the on-going operation of key attractions within the city-centre. In each case the Council’s response to those issues was explained in the report.

 

The report also examined the consultation responses that had specifically related to the Pollard Street sub-area of the overall Framework area. The draft of the Regeneration Framework had set out a clear intent to bring forward a redevelopment scheme for this sub-area: known as the MXM scheme. It was explained that the MXM scheme proposal and ambition reflected the decisions that had previously made in respect of the redevelopment of this area of land as set out in the Ancoats and New Islington Development Framework that was approved by the Executive in December 2016 after being subject to public consultation (Minute Exe/16/153).

 

Many respondents in this consultation were opposed to the potential loss of green space around the New Islington tram stop on Pollard Street. The report explained that the proposals being developed for the MXM had taken into account the guidance that had been contained in the Ancoats and New Islington Development Framework. It was anticipated that the scheme would seek to create a new linear green park along the canal from Great Ancoats street all the way through to Milliners Wharf. The park would run over 300 meters in length with an area of over 3,200 sq metres. It was also likely that the development would include new public square at the heart of the MXM scheme of about 140 sq. metres area.

 

Having considered the matters raised as part of the consultation, the responses to each of those as set out in the report, and the proposed changes to the draft Framework, it was agreed that the proposals contained within the revised Eastlands Regeneration Framework would seek to deliver the Sports and Innovation Zone on the Etihad Stadium and also new opportunities to develop a new leisure and recreation offer with that could further the growth of a sport, leisure and recreation economic cluster across the Eastlands area. Beyond the Etihad Campus the Framework would seek to promote the creation of new commercial development that would contribute to the creation of jobs within the area. The concerns over the possible economic impact on the city centre of the development of a new leisure arena were considered and the responses to those concerns, as set out in the report, were accepted.

 

It was noted that the report had also been considered at a meeting of the Economy Scrutiny Committee meeting in July. The committee had made three recommendations relating to the adoption of the Framework, which were all accepted (Minute ESC/19/33).

 

It was agreed that the Development Framework should therefore be adopted. Authority to approve and publish the final version, which would include the amendments arising from the consultation, was delegated to the Strategic Director.

 

Decisions

 

1.         To note the summary of issues and comments received from residents, businesses and other interested parties set out in Section 3 to 5 of the report and approve the suggested amendments set out in these sections to the final version of the Eastlands Regeneration Framework.

 

2.         To accept the recommendations made by the Economy Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 18 July 2019 (Minute ESC/19/33):

·         to incorporate the Council’s carbon reduction targets into the final version of the Eastlands Regeneration Framework;

·         that in respect of new commercial led opportunities associated with the Pollard Street Sub Area, to incorporate the preservation and promotion of high quality public realm and green space within the proposals; and

·         to take into account the views of the Committee and Local Ward Councillors in respect of new commercial led opportunities associated with the Etihad Campus Commercial Zone Sub Area.

 

3.         To approve the proposed approach set out in Section 3 of the report in respect of new commercial led opportunities associated with the Pollard Street Sub Area.

 

4.         To approve the proposed approach set out in Section 5 of the report in respect of new commercial led opportunities associated with the Etihad Campus Commercial Zone Sub Area.

 

5.         To delegate to the Strategic Director – Growth & Development, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Executive Member for Housing & Regeneration, authority to approve the final version of the Eastlands Regeneration Framework, with the intention that, if approved, it will become a material consideration in the Council’s decision making as a Local Planning Authority.

 

 

Wards affected: Ancoats and Beswick; Clayton and Openshaw; Miles Platting and Newton Heath;


24/07/2019 - Revising the Ethical Procurement Policy ref: 305    For Determination

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

The Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer submitted a report that sought to incorporate into the Ethical Procurement Policy the “Unite Charter for Ethical Employment Standards in the Voluntary and Community Sector”.

 

The had been adopted in March 2016 (Minute Exe/16/042). Recently the Council had been approached by the Unite trade union to see how the union could work with the Council to further develop and monitor the Council’s Ethical Procurement Policy. Discussion with the union had led to the proposal that the “Charter for Ethical Employment Standards in the Voluntary and Community Sector” be incorporated into the Policy.

 

The proposed change to the policy’s wording was to add…

 

“As a local authority we are responsible for the procurement of a multitude of contracts within the voluntary and community sector. It is therefore appropriate that we as a responsible Council have signed up to Unite’s Charter for Ethical Employment Standards in the Voluntary and Community Sector in order to achieve the highest standards of ethical employment and behaviour.  A link to the full charter that the Council have signed up to can be found in the appendix to the policy.”

 

A copy of the Charter would then be appended to the policy.

 

Those proposals were agreed.

 

Decisions

 

1.         To agree to the Unite Charter for Ethical Employment Standards in the Voluntary and Community Sector be included within the appendices of the Ethical Procurement Policy.

 

2.         To agree the inclusion of the additional wording to section 5 of the Policy as detailed in the report.

 

3.         To request that the Chief Executive signs the Charter on behalf of the Council to signify it has been included in the Policy.

 

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


24/07/2019 - Addendum to the Christie Hospital Christie Strategic Planning Framework ref: 301    For Determination

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

In June 2014 the Christie Strategic Planning Framework (SPF) had been considered approved (Minute Exe/14/055). In April 2017 a fire had caused substantial damage to the Paterson Building on the Christie Hospital site. That building had not been encompassed with the SPF when it was approved in 2014. Therefore, in March 2019 we had considered and endorsed as the basis for public consultation an addendum to the Christie SPF to provide a context for the future development of the site of the Paterson Building (Minute Exe/19/34).

 

A review of refurbishment options for the Patterson Building had revealed that it would not be possible to repair and retain the building and that it will need to be demolished. The purpose of the addendum to the SPF was therefore to help establish how the size, form and mass of a new building would be dictated by the core cancer research functions to be accommodated inside it. It was intended to also show how a bespoke architectural solution could ensure that floor layouts and vertical arrangements meet the specialist research, healthcare and collaboration needs, with individual labs adjacent both horizontally and vertically to allow the speed and ease of movement of people.

 

The consultation on the draft SPF Addendum had taken place in April and May 2019. The consultation period had ended on 16 May 2019 after a six-week period. Consultation letters had been sent out to around 4,000 local residents, landowners, council members and other stakeholders. Those letters had explained the consultation process, how to participate, and where to access the draft document. A copy of the draft had been published on the Council’s website, and comments had been invited.

 

Around 500 individual responses were received that opposed the adoption of the Addendum. Those included representations from The Withington Civic Society and The Withington Village Regeneration Partnership. Many of those objecting had commented that they recognised and valued the work undertaken at The Christie but were unable to support the building proposals in the draft Addendum. Two petitions opposing the proposals had also been received: one online that has 280 signatures and one hand written with 121 signatures.

 

Forty individual responses had been received in support of the proposals and about 2,000 postcards had also expressed support.

 

Responses have been received from local ward councillors: Stanton, Leech, Kilpatrick, Kelly Simcock, Wilson and Chambers.

 

The report explained that the objections to the proposals in the draft Addendum broadly fell into five categories:

·         that the process of producing an addendum to the SPF was not an appropriate way to deal with the potential redevelopment of a single building;

·         the building would be too big for the site and the area;

·         that it would be possible to distribute the new floor-space more efficiently at a lower height, which would provide larger building floorplates;

·         adverse impacts of additional car parking and traffic; and

·         detailed issues about the impact on the amenity of nearby homes and on the wider area.

 

For each of these categories the range of more specific issues that had been raised were set out in the report. The report also detailed the responses of the local ward councillors who had responded.

 

For each of these categories the report then set out responses to the issues that had been raised. It was also explained that many of the concerns about the impact of the proposed scheme on the amenity of residents in the area, whist being very important matters, did not come within the remit of the Executive or the adoption of the Addendum to the SPF. They were instead matters that would have to be fully considered as part of the determination of the planning application which had been submitted.

 

The meeting was addressed by Councillor Kelly Simcock, a ward councillor for the Didsbury East Ward. She expressed her support for the redevelopment of the Patterson building in a way that would be sensitive as possible to the concerns of the local community and to residents’ concerns about the proposed height of the building.

 

The meeting was also addressed by Councillor Wills, a ward councillor for the Withington Ward. He too shared residents’ concerns about the building’s height and sought an assurance that all options had been examined to reduce the height of the building. He also expressed concerns about the possible introduction of retail facilities in the base of the new building and the possible harmful impact those might have on the nearby village centre.

 

The meeting was then addressed by Mr Nick Jones, the project sponsor for the redevelopment at the Christie. He told the meeting how the project would build on the strengths of the Christie Hospital that were already well established in Manchester. The displacement of staff after the fire in the former building had been very detrimental to the research work on the site and harmful to the effective cooperation of researchers and clinicians dealing with the treatment of cancers. He explained that the design of the proposed building was to encourage ‘team science’ with a research environment that would help the Christie attract and retain the world’s top talent, and thereby to bring substantial benefits the people of Manchester and the region.

 

Members of the Executive and the Consultative Panel spoke on the wide range of views that had been expressed by consultees and there was recognition of the concerns and objections to the proposed height of the new building, and whether the case had been made that the size of the proposed building was justified by the need to provide high quality and world-leading research and collaboration space. Assurance were also given that such a building would not set a precedent for other planning applications as the very specific requirements of the intended use of this new building would be a material consideration that could not be applied to applications for other tall buildings in that part of the city.

 

Having considered the responses to the consultation it was agreed that the proposed addendum to the SPF sought to capture a major research and medical facility within Manchester which would have significant medical and economic benefits for the City and the region. Whilst residents in the area clearly value the work undertaken at the Christie they also have considerable concerns about the height of the new building and the wider issues of additional traffic and parking that would arise once it was operational. The draft addendum did not set out a policy position but recognised the opportunity there was to develop a facility of national and international significance at the site, it would help to ensure that The Christie would remain a strategically significant clinical, research and employment facility. The addendum was therefore approved and adopted.

 

Decisions

 

1.         To note the outcome of the public consultation on the Addendum to the 2014 Christie Strategic Planning Framework.

 

2.         To note the matters raised at the meeting by Councillors K Simcock and Wills, and Mr N Jones of the Christie Hospital.

 

3.         To approve the addendum to the 2014 Christie Strategic Planning Framework (SDF) and request that the Planning and Highways Committee take the Framework into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications for the site.

 

 

Wards affected: Didsbury East; Didsbury West; Old Moat; Withington;


24/07/2019 - Expansion of the Residents' Parking Zone around the Christie Hospital ref: 302    For Determination

Decision Maker: Executive

Made at meeting: 24/07/2019 - Executive

Decision published: 09/09/2019

Effective from: 24/07/2019

Decision:

A report submitted by the Director of Highways proposed an extension to the existing residents’ parking scheme adjacent to the Christie Hospital.

 

In January 2018 the Planning and Highways Committee had approved an application for a tiered car park at the hospital to provide eight levels of decked parking and the reconfiguration of a surface level car park (Minute PH/18/10).

 

That approval was subject to the signing a legal agreement whereby the Christie would provide the necessary funding so that the City Council could design, implement and operate the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) at the Christie over an extended area. The report explained that £1m of funding has been secured from the Christie to implement the scheme and to contribute to the on-going revenue costs for enforcement of the scheme.

 

The existing CPZ had been implemented in 2015 and had proved to be largely successful in addressing the impact on local residents of hospital staff and visitors parking in the surrounding residential streets. However, it had also caused significant displaced parking into the wider neighbourhood beyond the limit of the 2015 CPZ. As the hospital’s staff and visitor numbers were forecast to increase this proposed extension to the current CPZ sought to address these issues and lessen the impact of the displaced parking on the residents in the affected neighbourhoods.

 

Appended to the report was a map showing the extent of the current CPZ and the area to be included in the extension. The intention was for the extended area to operate in the same way as the existing scheme: Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm with a mixture of residents’ only parking bays, “past this point” residents’ parking streets and limited waiting for up to 3 hours with an exemption for residents with permits.

 

The report explained that the process to introduce the extension to the scheme would involve three rounds of consultation with local residents and local councillors. That would begin with a questionnaire to residents. Feedback from the questionnaires would inform the design of the scheme. The design would subject to a second stage consultation with residents. Feedback from that would be considered and changes made to the design if necessary before the scheme was subject the statutory consultation as the third step.

 

The meeting was addressed by Councillor Kelly Simcock for a second time. She welcomed the proposed extension to the CPZ and thanked the Christie Hospital for supporting its expansion through the provision of the £1m to allow it to go ahead.

 

We were grateful to The Christie, and the Christie’s Neighbourhood Forum and the local councillors, all of whom had contributed to making it possible for this proposal to now be brought forward. As well as welcoming and supporting the proposal to extend the existing CPZ to a wider area, it was agreed that it would also be helpful to undertake a review of the existing scheme as part of the next stages of the work.

 

Decision

 

To approve the design of an expanded residents parking scheme around the Christie.

 

 

Wards affected: Didsbury East; Didsbury West; Old Moat; Withington;


08/08/2019 - Application for Summary Review - Bliss Bar, 19 Albion Street, Manchester, M1 5LN ref: 333    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Made at meeting: 08/08/2019 - Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Decision published: 02/09/2019

Effective from: 08/08/2019

Decision:

The Committee considered the representations made on behalf of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and have taken both the written and oral representations into account.

 

In reaching its decision the Committee have also considered the Council’s statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance issued by the Secretary of state under Section 182 of the Act and the licensing objectives.

 

Decision

 

To suspend the licence with immediate effect.

 

The Committee were concerned by the evidence from GMP of the level of violence involved in the incidents in the early hours of Saturday 3 August 2019 involving three victims being stabbed following fighting both inside and then outside the premises. All three victims had confirmed to GMP that they were inside the premises just prior to being stabbed outside the premises.

 

The Committee viewed the CCTV and observed an incident starting inside the club with a large number of customers involved. The Premises said they did not see anyone being hit and did not think there was a fight inside the premises. The Committee did not accept this. On their viewing of the CCTV it was clear that a serious incident involving violence started within the club. They observed a belt being wrapped around knuckles as a possible weapon and crutches being used by one customer as weapon. Whilst the Committee were of the view it was the correct thing to do in turning off the music and putting the lights on when this incident occurred this also supported how serious it actually was including the fact they cleared the premises even though it could open until 6am under a Temporary Event Notice that night. Further around four or five door staff and the owner became involved again showing it was more than just an argument.

 

It was therefore very concerning to the Committee that given this incident inside the premises that no one at the premises had called the police when the fighting first started inside. A call was made over the radio by a police officer in the area at 04.29 that a male had been stabbed. However, on viewing the CCTV the Committee noted that fighting had started within the premises at 04.12 when no call was made to the police.

 

It was observed that the fighting was broken up and the club starts emptying the people out however it was clear that this initial incident inside then continued and escalated outside involving the same people who were customers at the club. This then led to the three victims being stabbed in their torsos. The Committee accepted GMPs comments that this further fighting outside, and the three stabbing incidents, is likely to have been avoided if the premises had contacted the police when the initial fighting began inside the premises.

 

Whilst the premises state they were not responsible for what happened as it was not right outside their club and could have involved people from Deansgate Locks, the Committee concluded that they have to take responsibility for what happens not only inside the club but also its immediate vicinity and they need to take action when an incident occurs of this nature outside their club involving their customers. At the very least they would be expected to call the police which they did not. Door staff were observed outside in full view of the fighting which was occurring near the premises and took no action and failed to call the police.

 

The Committee were informed that there are concerns over the general management of the premises and they are subject to an action plan following breaches of the premises licence being observed on the night following this incident. The Committee were informed by the premises they are co-operating with the Council and GMP and closed the following night voluntarily. Whilst the Committee accepted that an action plan is being implemented and a minor variation in relation to promoters at the premises had been put in on the night in question there were serious concerns over the training of staff and management of the premises. It was also clear that the premises has been using promotors for some time in breach of a direct condition on the licence not to use the same.

 

The premises representative said this was an isolated incident with no other issues of serious crime. It was accepted there was an incident in 2018 which was not as serious when there was a fight on the dance floor and police were called. The premises further stated they will not run this RnB night again or allow these people to attend the premises again. It was however not clear as to how they would ensure all the individuals involved in the fighting would not come back to the premises and the Committee were not at this time satisfied that the premises could prevent any further issues occurring given the current concerns with the running of the premises.

 

The committee considered whether any of the licence conditions could be modified to address their immediate concerns, as suggested by the premises, but considered this not to be the case. It was stated by the premises that further training would be undertaken and a condition could be put on the licence requiring this. The Committee agreed that this was clearly needed however did not think this sufficient addressed the current concerns of GMP and would also take time to implement at the premises.

 

The Committee viewed that there were failings in the operation and training of management and staff. These include the failures in understanding and training as to how to handle incidents of crime including when to call the police and the reporting and recording of such incidents.

 

The Committee therefore found that it was necessary and proportionate to suspend the licence with immediate effect pending the full review hearing to prevent serious crime and disorder occurring. The Committee viewed that the premises were currently failing to uphold licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. 

 

For the purpose of Section 53B(5)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003 immediate notice of this decision was given orally to GMP and the PLH.

The PLH was advised of their right to make representations against the interim steps and it was confirmed that the matter will be listed for full review on 2 September 2019 at 10am.

 


29/07/2019 - Temporary Event Notice - Land by On Bar, 46 Canal Street, Manchester, M1 3WD ref: 332    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Made at meeting: 29/07/2019 - Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Decision published: 02/09/2019

Effective from: 29/07/2019

Decision:

The Committee considered a request from the applicant of the Temporary Event Notice to defer the consideration to a later date.

 

Decision

 

To defer consideration of the Temporary Event Notice in respect of Land by On Bar, 46 Canal Street, Manchester, M1 3WD to the next available meeting.


29/07/2019 - Application for Premises Licence Variation - Behind Closed Doors, 93-95 Oldham Street, Manchester, M4 1LW ref: 331    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Made at meeting: 29/07/2019 - Licensing Sub Committee Hearing Panel

Decision published: 02/09/2019

Effective from: 29/07/2019

Decision:

The Committee considered all the representations as part of the hearing. In reaching its decision 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 Committee considered the content of the application and the representation as well as the oral representations of the applicant, the relevant case law, guidance and the Manchester City Council Statement of Licensing Policy. The Committee was satisfied that the applicant is a responsible operator and the premises has recently been operating the hours sought under a number of TENs without undermining the Licensing Objectives.  The Committee was therefore satisfied that the operation of the premises for the hours applied for subject to the existing conditions on the licence should not undermine the Licensing Objectives.

 

Decision:

 

To grant the Premises Licence Variation application for Behind Closed Doors, 93-95 Oldham Street, Manchester, M4 1LW.