Decisions

The Licensing Unit Manager submitted report setting out a proposal to delay the introduction of      safeguarding training for applicants/licence holders of Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers badges.

 

                    It had been agreed at the meeting of this Panel held on 20 March 2018 that the requirement for training be introduced from 1 July 2018. The Licensing Unit Manager explained that it had since been identified via the Greater Manchester Wider Leadership Team that the training needed to cover a wider range of safeguarding issues including adult and child sexual exploitation, domestic violence, disability awareness and conflict management. It was reported that training providers to deliver all these elements was currently being sought.

 

                    It was agreed:

 

                    That the implementation of safeguarding training, as agreed on 20 March 2018, be delayed until further notice.

 

                    (Note: this item which did not appear on the published agenda was allowed to be considered as a matter of urgency due to further information being recently received on the issue by the Licensing Service).

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Prior to consideration of the Minutes of the last meeting held on 26 April 2018, the Chair highlighted that it had been brought to his attention that Minute 437 of the meeting held on 20 March 2018 contained an incorrect statement. The Minute had been circulated and although previously approved the Panel were content to note for the record that the meeting referred to in the minute should state that it was attended by “upwards of 70 taxi drivers”

 

              Delegated decision:

 

              That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 26 April 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

 

The Assistant Director Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·                                   Gambling Act 2005 – A review of the current Statement of Principles is underway in line with the requirement to review every 3 years. Reports will be submitted to this Panel in due course

 

·         Common Minimum Standards – Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Trade – Consultation will be taking place on the issue across Greater Manchester

 

·         Appeal to Magistrates Court – The Licensing Unit Manager reported on a recent appeal which was dismissed, resulting in the Council being awarded £2360 costs.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

The Panel noted that although an application to vary was also made by Mr Arshad on behalf of Gone Local Limited, in view of the decision to refuse the Application for a transfer of the Premises Licence, this could no longer be pursued, as only the Premises Licence Holder is entitled under the Licensing Act 2003 to make such an application. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the Panel decided that it would not in any event have allowed the variation, for the same reasons it had refused the application for transfer, namely that there were causes for concern in relation to the Applicant and its representative Mr Arshad being an appropriate body/person to promote the Crime and Disorder Objective of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

 

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted for a transfer of Premises Licence under section 42 of the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of Jason’s Mini Market, 36 Albion Street, Radcliffe, M26 1BH.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from Greater Manchester Police.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided in the report to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from representatives of Greater Manchester Police and their witnesses from Trading Standards and the Commercial Premises Team at Bury Council.

 

In addition the Panel watched footage from a ‘bodycam’ worn by representatives of Greater Manchester Police.

 

The Panel asked questions of the representatives of Greater Manchester Police and their witnesses. All parties were offered the opportunity to questions those representatives.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from Mr Arshad, the representative of Gone Local Ltd, the Applicant/transferee.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant’s representative. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the applicant.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in April 2017

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

              

              FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

• The Applicant is a limited company and its sole recorded official and person with control of the company is Mr Rizvan Arshad.
• The Applicant is the owner of 36 Albion Street, Radcliffe, Bury, the licensed premises.
• The Applicant is therefore landlord of the business being run at the said premises.
• The Applicant’s representative Mr Arshad used to own the business but sold it to his cousin, who is the husband of the current Premises Licence Holder, in 2013.
• Mr Arshad helps out at the shop from time to time but is not employed there.
• The premises were inspected on multi-agency day of action on 3 August 2017 when it was discovered that the upstairs of the premises was being used as a residence and the electricity meter had been by-passed. The Premises Licence Holder’s husband was present at the time.
• Mr Arshad was working at the premises the following day when representatives from Electricity Northwest, Trading Standards and the Commercial Premises Team attended to disconnect the electricity.
• Mr Arshad was very unhelpful and uncooperative, refusing to give his name or accept the paperwork in relation to the prohibition order served to prevent the use of the premises due to the issues with the electricity meter.
• Mr Arshad became intimidatory towards the stated representatives, closing the shutters on the premises windows and on the door leaving the officers present in the dark inside the premises.
• When the Premises Licence Holder’s husband arrived at the premises, Mr Arshad instructed him not to accept the paperwork or sign anything.
• The officers felt forced into contacting the police for assistance.
• Mr Arshad was unhelpful and uncooperative towards the police and did not explain his business interests in relationship to the premises to the Police.
• The Applicants representative, Mr Arshad, provided no reasonable explanation for his failure to recognise or assist those in authority, or for his intimidatory behaviour.
• Footage from a ‘bodycam’ worn by representatives of Greater Manchester Police, showed the behaviour of Mr Arshad and in particular him stating he purely worked at the premises.
• The Applicants representative, Mr Arshad, provided no documentary evidence or other witnesses to support his explanations for his behaviour.

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it and the ‘bodycam’ footage, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were causes for concern in relation to the Applicant and its representative Mr Arshad being an appropriate body/person to promote the Crime and Disorder Objective of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Refuse the Application for the Transfer of a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted for a Premises Licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, for the supply of alcohol to the public in relation to 449A Bury New Road, Prestwich M25 1AF.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from four Interested Parties.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided in the report to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant’s representative Mr. Gee.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from Mrs Joanne Levy, who had raised objections.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Interested Parties. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Interested Parties.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in March 2015

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

              

              FINDINGS

 

• The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales

 

• Volunteered conditions from the applicant appended to the report, following dialogue with Greater Manchester Police had been agreed

 

• The Responsible Authorities were satisfied with the application subject to the conditions submitted

 

• A noise assessment survey was conducted by the Applicant on the 9^th May 2017 which concluded that the sound insulation performance is expected to be greater and suitable for the proposed activities

 

• There was no outdoor seating therefore noise from conversations would be minimal

 

• The Applicant had taken measures to prevent smoking outside the front of the premises

 

• There is no takeaway facility within the restaurant therefore it is unlikely there would be any litter

 

• The loss of rental income is driven by market forces and is not relevant to the licensing objectives

 

• The panel do not accept there is a significant risk taking into account that the area is already populated with businesses which are opened after the proposed closure times and there is no evidence that the Basil and Lily Clientele will pose a greater risk

 

• There is no material before the panel to show that there is likely to be any anti-social behaviour emanating from the premises

 

• The Panel do not accept that other businesses of a like nature in the area is a valid reason for rejecting this application. 

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted for a Premises Licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, for the supply of alcohol to the public in relation to 43 Bridge Street, Ramsbottom, BL0 9AD

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from one Interested Party.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided in the report to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant, Mr Sneesby.

 

There was no attendance by the Interested Party.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in April 2017

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

              

              FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

• The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales

 

• The conditions from the Applicant at appendix A to the report, had been agreed following dialogue with Greater Manchester Police.

 

• The Operating Schedule attached to the application provided for further steps that would be taken in order to promote the licensing objectives

 

• There was no evidence before the Panel to indicate that there is likely to be any anti-social behaviour emanating from the premises.

 

• There was no evidence before the Panel to indicate that there is likely to be any noise emanating from the premises that may amount to a public nuisance.

 

• There was no evidence before the Panel that there is likely to be any other crime and disorder, issues of public safety or harm to children in connection with the premises.

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted for a transfer of Premises Licence under section 42 of the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of Polka, 20 Parkhills Road, Bury.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from Greater Manchester Police.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided in the report to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from representatives of Greater Manchester Police and their witness from Trading Standards at Bury Council.

 

The Panel asked questions of the representatives of Greater Manchester Police and their witness. All parties were offered the opportunity to questions those representatives.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from Mr Omid, the Applicant/transferee.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the applicant.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in April 2017

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

              

              FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

• The Applicant is the owner of the business being run at the premises and has been for 4 years.
• The Applicant has a number of previous convictions one of which resulted in the Applicant receiving a custodial sentence.
• The convictions and sentences were of a serious nature.
• The offences were of a similar nature, indicating that the Applicant was a repeat offender.
• The offences demonstrated a lack of regard for the law, court process and court orders.
• A large amount of illicit tobacco products had been discovered in the business premises for which the Applicant has responsibility.
• The Applicant showed no sense of remorse or recognition of the seriousness of the offences.
• The Applicant did not accept any responsibility for the offences committed or the illicit tobacco found in the premises.
• The Applicant knew or should have known about the illicit cigarettes, as they were found in an area of the premises where other activities associated with the business were being undertaken.
• The Applicant had a personal licence which appeared to have been issued by Leeds City Council, for which the Applicant had paid a friend to obtain via his address in Leeds and which had therefore been obtained contrary to the Licensing Act 2003.

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were causes for concern in relation to the applicant being an appropriate person to promote the Crime and Disorder Objective of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Refuse the Application for the Transfer of a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

Prior to the hearing, the Licensing Authorityreceived a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) from Mrs Carol Rothwell, in respect of a proposed temporary event to be held at the Paddock, Sheep Hey Farm, Leaches Road, Ramsbottom, BL0 0ND between the hours of 13.00 and 23.00 on the 28^th July 2017. An objection notice from a ‘relevant person’ pursuant to section 104(2) of the Licensing Act 2003, was also been received, namely the Environmental Health Section of Bury Council.

 

              The circumstances relating to the TEN and objection to it were outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel by the Deputy Licensing Officer.

 

The TEN and objection from the relevant person were received within the appropriate period and complied with the procedural requirements within the Licensing Act 2003.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the TEN, objection with statements, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the relevant person(s) (Ms. Waddington and Ms. Walsh – Bury Health and Environmental Protection Section) and the premises user for the TEN Mrs Carol Rothwell.  The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The relevant person(s) (representatives from Environmental Health) were invited to explain the reasons for the objection notice and the Panel asked questions. It was explained by Mrs Waddington that the objection related to noise nuisance emanating from the premises in question on 3 previous occasions. These had resulted in complaints from local residents, as set out in the objection and attached statements. Officers have visited during the time of the latest of these events and noted noise from loud music was clearly audible in the complainants residences whilst doors and windows were closed.

 

Mrs Rothwell was also invited to make representations about the objection and the Panel again asked questions. She explained that the events only take place up to twice a year and this TEN relates to a wedding which will start at 4pm and finish at 11pm. Two other TEN’s had been served for event in June 2016 and May 2018, without objection. She further explained that she had sought expert advice and followed it and always notified residents of upcoming events by letter.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to question each other.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the matter and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in April 2017.

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

• A Temporary Event Notice (TEN) was issued by Mrs Carol Rothwell for the Paddock, Sheep Hey Farm, Leaches Road, Ramsbottom, BL0 0ND in relation to an event on 28^th July 2017 between the hours of 13:00 and 23:00 for the retail sale of alcohol and the provision of regulated entertainment.

 

• An objection notice was received from a relevant person namely Bury’s Health and Environmental Protection Section in respect of this TEN.

 

• Environmental Health received complaints regarding noise caused by loud music, emanating from events on this site during weddings on 18^th July 2015, 31^st December 2015 and on 23^rd April 2016.

 

• Complaints were received about noise emanating from the premises on 30^th December 2015 but this related to the band playing at the event the following evening, rehearsing.

 

• These events held in at The Paddock, resulted in complaints from nearby residents relating to nuisance from loud music being played. Two of these events had TEN’s albeit no TEN had been given for one of them as it involved a brewery who were to issue the TEN and Mrs Rothwell found later it hadn’t.

 

• There are only 1 or 2 events held in the Paddock a year and based upon the start and end time of those referred to in the documentation submitted, they would run from approximately 1pm to 12:30am.

 

• Officers from the Health and Environmental Protection Section have visited the complainants home and noted that music is audible inside the premises whilst the windows and doors are closed.

 

• There is no acoustic barrier to preventing noise travelling from the Paddock into nearby houses.

 

• On 1^st March 2017 an Environmental Health Officer met with Mrs Rothwell to discuss the matter of noise management and possible future events.  Mrs Rothwell responded by submitting a Noise Management Plan, based on a noise assessment by Miller Goodall Ltd.

 

·         Two more TEN’s have been issued for events in the Paddock on 24^th June 2017 and 18^th May 2018. No objections have been raised to these by any relevant person.

Delegated Decision:

 

Having heard from the Deputy Licensing Officer, Mrs Rothwell and representatives from Environmental Health and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows;

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the matter before it and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned. Based upon its findings of fact, the Panel noted that there were issues regarding noise emanating from the premises that affected neighbouring properties, but in view of the frequency and timing of the events and the fact other events with TEN’s had received no objections, it was satisfied the current event would not undermine the licensing objectives, in particular that relating to public nuisance.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, not to issue a Counter notice.

 

The Chair informed those present of their right of appeal within 21 days of receipt of the written decision to the Magistrates’ Court.

 

Prior to the hearing the authority received an application by the Chief Constable of  GMP in respect of the licensed premises known as Alt House, 1 – 3 Moss Lane, Whitefield, for a summary review of the Premises Licence pursuant to Sections 53A to 53C of the Licensing Act 2003 as amended by section 21 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties prior to the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from GMP’s representative, Mr Stock. These set out the basis of GMP’s application for summary review of the premises licence, as detailed in their application attached to the report of the Licensing Unit Manager, together with the requisite certificate signed by a senior police officer, regarding a number of incidents at and otherwise connected with the licensed premises, demonstrating serious crime and serious disorder emanating from incidents of serious violence. One of these incidents had resulted in serious injuries to an individual and Mr Stock explained that there was an ongoing risk of further such incidents.

 

 

Prior to consideration of the further representations from GMP, Mr Stock made application for part of the representations to be made in private excluding members of the public, save for the representative of the Premises Licence Holder and their partner.

 

The Panel duly considered the application and passed a resolution excluding members of the public from part of the hearing under regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, on the basis that the public interest in doing so outweighed the public interest in the hearing taking place in public, in view of the information to be discussed.

 

Mr Stock went on to make further more detailed representations about the incidents at the premises.

 

The Panel asked questions of the representatives during the process.

 

The Hearing then returned to a public session.

 

The representative of the Premises Licence Holder made representations.

 

All parties were given the opportunity to question each other and to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the matter and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

 

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

 

DELEGATED DECISION

 

The Panel carefully considered all of the representations and evidence produced and in particular found that incidents of serious crime and serious disorder connected with the licensed premises had occurred on a number of occasions, in particular on 31^st December 2016 when the brother of an individual in control of the premises was assaulted inside the premises resulting in him being stabbed a number of time and suffering a punctured lung and kidney.

 

The Panel therefore unanimously resolved that the evidence presented both in open and private sessions demonstrated serious crime and serious disorder of an extremely violent nature. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the incidents were sufficiently serious. 

 

The Panel noted that there is no definition of ‘serious disorder’ in the Licensing Act 2003, but based on the evidence before it, it was satisfied that an incident clearly took place were so serious that not only were members of the public injured, but others were put at serious risk of injury. 

 

In relation to what steps are appropriate, the Panel considered all of the representations and evidence, as well as the options set out in section 53B(3) of the Licensing Act 2003.  The Panel has also considered what steps it felt were appropriate to best promote the licensing objectives in the said Act, in particular in this case the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety.

 

In this case, because of the serious nature of the incidents referred to and the risk of further serious crime and disorder, the Panel resolved that in order to promote the said licensing objectives it must revoke the premises licence.

 

The Chair informed those present of their right of appeal within 21 days of receipt of the written decision to the Magistrates’ Court. The interim steps in place to suspend the premises licence would remain pending consideration of an appeal. 

 

 

Prior to the hearing the authority received an application by the Chief Constable of  GMP for a summary review of the Premises Licence  in respect of Alt House, 1 – 3 Moss Lane, Whitefield, under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003. This in turn necessitated consideration as to whether it is necessary to take interim steps pending determination of that review in accordance with Sections 53A to 53C of the said Act.

 

The nature of the application and consideration of interim steps was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties at the hearing, by the representative of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) Mr Stock, at the hearing. The Hearing was adjourned to allow all those present the opportunity to read through the information prior to the Hearing proceeding.

 

The Panel then heard oral representations from GMP’s representative, Mr Stock. These set out the basis of GMP’s application for summary review of the premises licence, as detailed in their application attached to the report of the Licensing Unit Manager, together with the requisite certificate signed by a senior police officer, regarding a number of serious incidents at and otherwise connected with the licensed premises, demonstrating serious crime and serious disorder emanating from incidents of serious violence. One of these incidents had resulted in serious injuries to an individual and Mr Stock explained that there was an ongoing risk of further such incidents.

 

Prior to consideration of the further representations from GMP, Mr Stock made application for part of the representations to be made in private excluding members of the public, save for the representative of the Premises Licence Holder and their partner.

 

The Panel duly considered the application and passed a resolution excluding members of the public from part of the hearing under regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, on the basis that the public interest in doing so outweighed the public interest in the hearing taking place in public, in view of the information to be discussed.

 

Mr Stock went on to make further more detailed representations about the incidents at the premises.

 

The Panel then viewed CCTV footage presented by GMP, taken from the licensed premises.

 

The Panel asked questions of the representatives during the process.

 

The Hearing then returned to a public session.

 

The representative of the Premises Licence Holder made representations.

 

All parties were given the opportunity to question each other and to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the matter and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

 

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

 

DELEGATED DECISION

 

The Panel carefully considered all of the representations and evidence produced and in particular found that incidents of serious crime and serious disorder connected with the licensed premises had occurred on a number of occasions, in particular on 31^st December 2016 when the brother of an individual in control of the premises was assaulted inside the premises resulting in him being stabbed a number of time and suffering a punctured lung and kidney.

 

The Panel therefore unanimously resolved that the evidence presented both in open and private sessions demonstrated serious crime and serious disorder of an extremely violent nature. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the incidents were sufficiently serious to mean interim steps are necessary pending consideration of the summary review application. 

 

The Panel noted that there is no definition of ‘serious disorder’ in the Licensing Act 2003, but based on the evidence before it, it was satisfied that  incidents clearly took place were so serious that not only were members of the public injured, but others were put at serious risk of injury.  This in the Panel's view meant its powers to impose interim steps under section 53B of the said Act were engaged.

 

In relation to what steps are appropriate, again the Panel considered all of the representations and evidence, as well as the options set out in section 53B(3) of the Licensing Act 2003.  The Panel has also considered what steps it felt were appropriate to best promote the licensing objectives in the said Act, in particular in this case the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety. 

 

In this case, because of the serious nature of the incidents referred to, and the risk of further serious crime and disorder, the Panel resolved that in order to promote the said licensing objectives it must suspend the premises licence immediately.

 

The Chair of the Panel advised the representative of the Premises Licence Holder that it does have the right to make written representations on these steps, if so advised.

 

 

 

 

Prior to the Hearing, the licensing authority received an application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 from Greater Manchester Police for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Studio 24 at 24 Silver Street, Bury.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Officer.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel. All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representation were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Representative for GMP, Mr Kent, explained that prior to the Licensing Hearing Panel Meeting, meetings had taken place with the Premises Licence Holder Mr Stross, the DPS Mr Marshall and their representative Mr Lyons, the Licensing Officer Mr Bridge and GMP. There had also been visits by GMP to the premises to review the CCTV system and offer advice.

 

Following the meetings and the visits a number of additional conditions in relation to the Drugs Policy and the Search Policy had been agreed between both parties and changes to the CCTV system had been advised and it was confirmed by Mr Marshall that these would be undertaken.

 

The updated Drugs Policy Conditions were reported:-

 

The premises shall operate a zero tolerance policy to drugs as follows:

 

a)   All staff will complete drugs awareness training within 1 month of commencing employment, evidence of such training will be documented and signed by both the DPS and member of staff to confirm such training has taken place.

b)   Customers displaying any signs of being under the influence of drugs will be refused entry to the premises. If drugs of any sort are seized during any search, the items will be evidenced on the CCTV camera at the entrance to the premises and the police will be notified by contacting 101 from time to time (although this will note apply in every case, for example if a small amount of cannabis for personal use is confiscated). Greater Manchester Police will deal with the matter as part of daily business.

c)   Self-sealed numbered bags will be used to safely and securely store any drugs that are seized. Wherever possible, the bag will be sealed and signed in the presence of the individual(s) from who they were seized.

d)   Internal patrols shall be carried out in areas which are vulnerable to drug taking or supply, such as toilets or poorly lit areas as a minimum requirement every 30 minutes. The patrols will record within the incident book should any drugs be found on persons within the premises or drugs paraphernalia found within the toilets or other vulnerable areas.

e)   Staff will not approach any persons suspected of supplying controlled drugs. They shall be kept under observation and the duty manager or security personnel should be informed, the duty manager or security personnel should immediately contact the police for assistance in such circumstances.

f)    Any persons supplying controlled drugs shall be detained where it is possible and safe to do so and the police shall be informed.

g)   Any customer displaying signs of being under the influence of drugs within the premises will be cared for by a member of staff until assistance arrives.

 

The updated Search Policy Conditions were reported:

 

The premises will operate the following Search Policy:

 

a)   When employed, door staff will monitor customers as they queue and enter the premises.

 

b)   In order to deter customers from bringing drugs and/or offensive weapons into the premises, no less than 1 in 10 customers entering the premises shall be searched.

 

c)   Signage will be placed outside the premises to advise patrons that they will be subject to searches from door staff and that the searches will be monitored by CCTV. Refusal to be searched will result in no entry to the premises.

 

d)   A CCTV camera and TV monitor will be placed at the entrance to the premises where searches are to be undertaken so that individuals who have drugs seized from their person can be identified. This will also provide evidential footage if any items are seized from the patron and act as a deterrent for patrons not to bring items into the premises.

 

e)   Those displaying signs of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be refused entry to the premises. If drugs of any sort are seized, they will be shown and evidenced on the CCTV camera at the entrance to the premises. The police will then be notified of items seized by the premises contacting 101 from time to time (although this will not apply in every case, for example if a small amount of cannabis for personal use is confiscated). The matter will then be dealt with by Greater Manchester Police within the course of daily business.

 

f)    If weapons are seized or if anyone is reasonably suspected of carrying a weapon, the weapon will be shown and evidenced on the CCTV camera. The police will be notified immediately by contacting 101. The matter will then be dealt with by Greater Manchester Police in the course of daily business.

 

g)   Door staff will be vigilant to the fact that adapted articles can be used as weapons but can be more difficult to detect. If any such items (e.g. jewellery, belt buckles) give cause for concern, access to the premises will be denied.

 

h)   Self-sealed numbered bags will be used to safely and securely store any drugs/weapons that are seized. Wherever possible, the bag will be sealed and signed in the presence of the individual(s) from who they were seized.

 

i)     All seizures will be fully recorded by the CCTV system and will be entered into the premises' incident log book.

 

j)    The items which are seized will be securely stored on the premises so that police officers can subsequently collect the items from the premises following the seizures.

 

k)   No items whatsoever will be permitted to be sold on the premises by any third party.

 

It was also stated that an additional condition had been requested from Public Health representatives in relation to a lockable drugs box being on the premises where any confiscated substances could be stored.

 

Representatives present from Public Health stated that they would withdraw their representation if the lockable box condition was agreed.

 

Mr Lyons the legal representative of the PLH and the DPS stated that all conditions set out within the policies would be followed, the lockable box for storage of confiscated substances would be installed on the premises and all changes and modifications to the CCTV system and the access of the basement would be undertaken and reviewed by GMP.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the modified conditions as set out above be approved.

 

 

 

Prior to the Hearing, the licensing authorityreceived an application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, from Bury Trading Standards Weights and Measures Service, for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of 193 Rochdale Road, Bury.

 

              The application was outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel by the Licensing Manager.

 

The application for a review of the licence was received within the appropriate period and complied with the procedural requirements within the Licensing Act 2003.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant for the Review (Miss Halligan – Bury Council Trading Standards), the Licence Holder’s representative (Mr Ahmed) and the previous licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (Mr Alyas). The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Applicant for the Review was invited to explain the reasons for the application and the Panel asked questions of the Applicant.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant and vice versa.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in June 2014

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. On 2 separate occasions, as a result of Trading Standards visits, non duty paid and counterfeit tobacco was found concealed on the premises. On balance the Panel found that despite Mr Alyas’s assertion that they were for personal use, the differing brands and types of product and the proximity to the tills where they were located suggested the shop was selling counterfeit or non duty paid tobacco.

 

2. A test purchase of a first class stamp was carried out on 24 February 2016, which proved to be counterfeit. Despite Mr Alyas’s explanation that he had purchased 400 stamps at a discounted rate from what he believed to be a Royal Mail representative, the Panel had concerns that Mr Alyas would enter into a cash transaction with no record or receipt being provided.

 

3. The Panel were satisfied that during a Multi Agency visit on 1 March 2016, drugs were found on the premises.

 

4. During a visit on 9 December 2015, Trading Standards procured 2 packets of ham with use by dates of 24/10/15 and 21/11/15. Mr Alyas claimed that the supplier had not returned to remove unsold products, which was usually the case. The Panel found that Mr Alyas’s explanation demonstrated that insufficient systems were in place to monitor sell by dates on products. 

 

5. The Panel noted that Mr Alyas had been invited on more than one occasion to attend an interview with Trading Standards, to which he had not responded. Copies of invite letters, which had been sent to his home address and hand delivered to the shop, were submitted to the Panel at the Hearing.

 

6. The Panel noted that Mr Alyas acknowledged that he did not maintain a refusals book for cigarettes and alcohol, in line with the conditions set out within the current Licence.

 

7. An application to transfer the Premises Licence to Mrs Abru Faisal together with an application to nominate her as the Designated Premises Supervisor had been received on 5 September 2016 and subsequently granted.  The Panel noted that no evidence was submitted or provided verbally from Mrs Faisal in respect of her ability and willingness to uphold and maintain the licensing objectives.

 

8. The Panel noted that Mr Alyas would continue to be employed within the shop and highlighted concerns that his continued involvement in the business may hinder the ability of the new Premises Licence Holder to uphold and maintain the licensing objectives

 

Delegated Decision:

 

Having heard from Mr Ahmed, Mr Alyas and Miss Halligan, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

All of the evidence was considered with care and it was established that having understood the request for review and equally understanding the representations made, on balance, the Panel found there were causes for concern and a lack of responsibility being taken so far as the promotion of the following Licensing Objective was concerned:

 

·         the Prevention of Crime and Disorder

Based upon their findings of fact and in the interests of the wider community the above objectives were found to have been undermined.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, to Revoke the Licence.

 

The Chair informed those present of their right of appeal within 21 days of receipt of the written decision to Bury and Rochdale Magistrates’ Court.

 

Councillor Jones declared that he recognised Mr Laum, a director of the Ivory Pan Asian restaurant, as he had patronised the restaurant when it had been The China Lounge. This would not affect his judgment of the issues.

 

Councillor Jones also said he recognised  Mr Hewitt, one of the objectors as he recognised him due to working next door to where Mr Hewitt lived prior to his retirement. This would not affect his judgment of the issues.

 

Councillor Adams stated that he recognised Mr Lau a director of the Ivory Pan Asian restaurant as he had patronised the restaurant when it had been The China Lounge. This would not affect his judgment of the issues.

 

Councillor Hodkinson declared that he was the treasurer for Ramsbottom Business Group for many years and in this role had encountered  Mr Murray. This would not affect his judgment of the issues.

 

Prior to the Hearing, the licensing authorityreceived an application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, from Mrs Hannah Brookes, a local resident, for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Alt House, 1-3 Moss Lane, Whitefield, Manchester.

 

Prior to hearing the application, the Panel heard oral representations from Mr Gilmore, barrister representing Mrs Warrender an associate of Mr Kersch, the representative of license holder of Alt House, Alt House Limited. Although it was noted that Mrs Warrender was not a party to the proceedings before the Panel, all of those present confirmed they had no objection to the Panel hearing from her representative. These set out the basis of a request for the Licensing Hearings Panel to adjourn the hearing as the Premises Licence Holder and those involved in managing the licensed premises, were not sufficiently prepared to deal with the review, had no legal representation and had been unable to secure any despite approaching 2 firms of solicitors.  

 

Mr Gilmore explained that the request to adjourn was not only in the interest of the Premises Licence Holder but also in the wider public interest. If the Hearing were to go ahead the outcome would likely be appealed which would then have a negative financial impact on all parties. All other parties were asked to comment upon the application. Mrs Brookes and the other members of the public present asked the Panel to note their objection to an adjournment as the matter had been ongoing for over two months, they were ready and prepared and it was felt likely whatever the outcome, there may be an appeal. GMP through their representative Mr Stott, stated they were neutral on the matter.

 

The Panel adjourned to discuss the request.

 

The Panel received legal advice from the Council Solicitor as to the requirements of the relevant legislation and on their return reported that the request for an adjournment and had been refused and the hearing would continue. The Panel was satisfied that the balance of public interest was in favour of proceeding as a number of people had attended and come prepared. Mr Kersch, the representative of license holder of Alt House, Alt House Limited was offered a small amount of time to consider his case, but this was refused.

 

The representative for GMP, Mr Stott, then addressed the Panel and stated that GMP wished to withdraw its representation to the application with immediate effect.

 

The Panel adjourned to discuss the request.

 

The Panel received legal advice from the Legal Officer as to the requirements of the relevant legislation and on their return reported that the request was noted, that the evidence submitted by GMP would be entirely disregarded by the Panel and the representatives from GMP were advised they could be released.

 

              The application was outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel by the Deputy Licensing Officer.

 

The application for a review of the licence was received within the appropriate period and complied with the procedural requirements within the Licensing Act 2003.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant (Mrs Brookes) who was invited to explain the reasons for her application. The Panel also heard from local residents; Mrs Ratcliffe, Ms Deegan and Ms Morgan who had made representations in advance of the hearing. Councillor Mallon also made representations on behalf of Mr R Andrew from Barash Pharmacy whose business shares outside space with Alt House.

 

The Applicant and other members of the public stated that they had all lived within the area of the Licensed Premises for a number of years and that since opening there had been a great deal of public nuisance emanating from the premises and its patrons. This included noise form music and voices (shouting, arguing and foul language) from inside and outside the premises, particularly late into the evening and beyond, including from the smoking area and car park. This can be heard in the homes of the Applicant and other residents causing them distress and affecting the use and enjoyment of their homes. There is excessive litter from bottles and drugs paraphernalia (small silver gas canisters) around the premises, public footpath and the ginnel nearby, which is also being used as a toilet.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant and the other members of the public who made oral representations and all parties and the other persons present, were offered the opportunity to ask questions.

 

The representative of the Premises License Holder Mr Kersch was invited to present the case for the Licence Holder, Alt House Limited. He stated that he had originally planned for the premises to be a community café bar but that as he had needed financial assistance, those becoming involved in running the premises wanted it to be run differently. Mr Kersch stated that he accepted there had been problems emanating from the premises that had affected residents and he apologies for that. He accepted the problems re noise and litter, but indicated he and those involved were trying to deal with the problems and move forward. He stated that sound proofing and noise limiting improvements were planned to take place and agreed that the effect on residents to date was unfair.

 

The Panel asked questions and the other members of the public who made oral representations and all parties and the other persons present, were offered the opportunity to ask questions.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer on the issues raised by both parties in relation to the relevant licensing objectors being crime and disorder as well as public nuisance, that a criminal conviction was not required to satisfy these objectives, that incidents outside the premises could be taken into account if connected with the premises and that the standard of proof for the Panel was on a balance of probability.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in March 2015

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. The Premises License Holder accepted that the noise and litter from the premises was affecting local residents.

 

2. The noise and litter emanating from the Licensed Premises was affecting a number of local residents and amounted to a public nuisance

 

3. The representative of the Premises Licence Holder apologised for the effect on local residents of the noise and stated he was in the process of installing sound proofing to remedy the issue of noise. 

 

4. Before the premises had opened it had been advertised as being a cafe and community hub but this had never happened.

 

5. The representative of the Premises License Holder confirmed that he had, on occasion removed empty bottles from the car park and ginnel. He went on again to apologise to local residents for this.

 

6. The representative of the Premises License Holder confirmed that there had been times when patrons had opened the windows to the rear of the premises but there was now a doorman in place to ensure that if windows were opened they would be closed straight away.

 

 

7. The representative of the Premises License Holder confirmed that patrons had been allowed to gather in the smoking area but the Premises Licence Holder’s staff were now stopping people from taking drinks into the area after 7.30pm.

 

8. A new DPS had been employed by the Premises License Holder and had been in post for a matter of weeks.

 

9. Residents had sent text and email messages to representatives and staff of the Premises Licence Holder complaining about the noise and litter. These were acknowledged and apologies made, but any improvements were limited and short lived.

 

DELEGATED DECISIONS

 

The Panel returned to the Hearing room to give its decision.

 

Having heard from Mrs Brookes the Applicant, other members of the public who had made representations, along with the representative of the Premises Licence Holder (and others involved in running the licensed premises), the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and decided as follows.

 

All of the evidence was considered with care and it was established that having understood the request for review and equally understanding the representations made, on balance, the Panel found there were causes for concern so far as the promotion of the following licensing objectives were concerned;

·         Public nuisance

The Panel were satisfied based on the evidence before it, that there were regular incidents of public nuisance relating to noise and litter. It noted that this was accepted by the Premises Licence Holder and that the evidence presented by the Applicant and other members of the public was largely accepted.

 

The Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and in light of the relevant policy and guidance unanimously resolved the following modifications to the premises licence and further that henceforth, the exemptions granted by virtue of the Live Music Act 2012 in relation to the provision of Live and Recorded music will no longer apply to this premises:

 

1.   That all the timings shown on the current licence be reduced by one hour with the resultant timings as follows:

 

a.       The Supply of alcohol – For consumption on the premises:

 

Monday to Sunday                                       11.00 to 23.00hrs

 

 

 

                  

b.       The Provision of Regulated Entertainment comprising: Performance of a Play (Indoors), Exhibition of Films (Indoors), Live Music (Indoors), Recorded Music (Indoors) Performance of Dance (Indoors) Entertainment of a similar description to that falling within E, F and G (Indoors):

 

          Monday to Sunday                                       11.00 to 23.00hrs

 

          c.       Provision of Late Night Refreshment

 

                   Monday to Sunday                                       23.00 to 23.30hrs

 

d.       The opening hours of the premises:

 

                   Monday to Sunday                                       07.00 to 23.30hrs

 

1.   None of the outside areas to the premises to include the rear car park are to be used for licensable activities or for the consumption of alcohol after 19.30 hrs daily.

 

2.   An effective noise limiting device approved in writing by the Council (which shall so far as possible be tamper-proof) shall be installed and operated in the premises and all noise levels shall be agreed and set to the written satisfaction of the Council. Whenever regulated entertainment is taking place, all amplified music (whether live or recorded) and associated sources (e.g. DJ’s and amplified voices/amplified instruments) are to be connected to this noise limiting device.

 

3.   That reasonable sound proofing measures be taken within the premises to the satisfaction of the council to prevent the playing of live/recorded music disturbing residents within the vicinity of the premises.

 

              Prior to the Hearing, the Licensing Authority receivedan application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Pics Bar at 30-32 Market Street, Bury.

 

              The hearing of the application had previously been set for 29^th April 2016, but was adjourned at the request of the Premises Licence Holder.

 

              The application for review was outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

              Written representations and statements in relation to the application from GMP were submitted to the Panel.  

 

All documentary evidence had been served on all parties in advance of the Hearing. 

 

The Panel heard oral representations from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) through their solicitor Mr Kent. During those representations, an application was made to move into private session pursuant to regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearing) Regulations 2005. This was on the basis that the CCTV footage to be presented may identify individuals which in turn may harm the progress of the police investigation into certain events that took place at the premises and any subsequent trial of the perpetrators.

 

Upon consideration of the application, the Panel passed a resolution excluding members of the public (save for the Applicant and the 4 members of the public who had made relevant representations) from part of the hearing under regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, on the basis that the public interest in doing so outweighed the public interest in the hearing taking place in public, in view of the information to be discussed.

 

CCTV footage was then played. All parties were given an opportunity to comment.

 

Once the footage had been viewed, the hearing returned to public session.

 

The Panel asked questions of the GMP. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the GMP.

 

The Panel then heard oral representations from Mr G. Clarke, Mr M. Clarke and Ms. E. Hastie who had all made relevant representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of the representors, and all parties were offered the opportunity to question of them.

 

The Premises Licence Holder through their representative Mr Douglas made oral representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Premises Licence Holder’s representatives and all parties were offered the opportunity to question them.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer on the issues raised by both parties in relation to the relevant licensing objectors being crime and disorder as well as public safety, that a criminal conviction was not required to satisfy these objectives, that incidents outside the premises could be taken into account if connected with the premises and that the standard of proof for the Panel was on a balance of probability.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in March 2015

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. The Premises Licence in respect of Pics was held by Pics Bar Limited. Mrs Clare Clarke was the sole director for the Company.  The Designated Premises Supervisor was Miss Alexandra Clarke.

 

2. Pics Bar Limited was dissolved on the 22^nd March 2016.

 

3. On the 24^th March 2016 the Licensing Service received an application from the Dog House Bury Limited for the licence to be transferred to the company.  Mrs Clare Clarke is the Company Director of the Dog House Bury Limited.  The Designated Premises Supervisor is Miss Alexandra Clarke.  The Licence was transferred to the Dog House Bury Limited.

 

4. Pics is a bar/small club situated in a prominent and busy area of Bury Town Centre at 30/32 Market Street.

 

5. Pics is one of only three licensed premises within Bury Town Centre that have a licence allowing the sale of alcohol until 0400 hours.

 

6. On the 31^st January 2016 an incident occurred at the premises which had been of a violent nature, and which resulted in a serious injury to a member of the public inside the premises, who suffered a fractured skull. During this incident a police officer attending feared for his safety due to the actions of security staff and other patrons of the premises. The staff at the premises had to be asked twice to turn off music and close the premises, and the injured party was found at the rear of the premises outside a poorly lit fire door. The Premises Licence Holder’s staff were of no assistance to GMP.

 

7. Following the incident on 31^st January 2016, the following crimes were reported; Section 47 assault and a section 20 assault.  Both assaults occurred in the premises.

 

8. On the 27^th February 2016 a further incident occurred at the premises of a violent nature, and which resulted in a serious injury to a member of the public outside the premises and also injury to a street pastor trying to assist. Members of the Licensing Hearings Panel reviewed CCTV of the incident that occurred on the 27^th February 2016 and noted that;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.  As a result of the incident at Pics on the 27^th February 2016, a racially aggravated section 5 public order was submitted; two section 20 assaults and a section 47 assault was reported.  A street pastor who was in attendance was kicked twice in the head; a further section 47 assault was submitted.  All of these incidents occurred directly outside the premises.

 

10. Following these incidents and during police investigations it was found that CCTV at the rear of the premises was not connected to any system. Not only is this a condition of the licence, but the Premises Licence Holder was not aware of this until brought to their representative attention by the police.

 

11. There has been a large amount of correspondence with representatives from Pics, in respect of concerns about levels of intoxication, behaviour of the door staff, CCTV, management issue on the following occasions; advice letters in October 2012 and 2013, warning letter in December 2013 and email correspondence in February and March 2016, emanating from GMP.

 

12.  Six of the seven incidents reported to police during the time period 25th October 2015 to 27^th February 2016 occurred between 0200 hours and 0405 hours. 

 

13.  The Panel noted the letters of support for Pics bar were received from local businesses and the Chair of Pubwatch.

 

 

Decision

 

The Panel returned to the Hearing room to give its decision.

 

Having heard from Mr Kent, Solicitor of Greater Manchester Police, Mr Douglas and the Designated Premises Supervisor along with the Premises Licence Holder, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and decided as follows.

 

All of the evidence was considered with care and it was established that having understood the request for review and equally understanding the representations made, on balance, the Panel found there were causes for concern so far as the promotion of the following licensing objectives were concerned;

 

·         Public Safety

·         the Prevention of Crime and Disorder

The Panel were satisfied based on the evidence before it, that the incidents referred to by GMP on the 31^st January 2016 and 27^th February 2016, clearly took place. The Panel noted that, in isolation, each of these incidents were of a serious nature. The Panel was not satisfied there was the appropriate level of control and management of the security of the premises generally and in particular outside of the premises. Patrons where left unattended when in need of assistance, not assisted when leaving, there were no clear dispersal arrangements and security staff could be seen leaving the door unattended, and becoming aggressive with persons outside. People had been seriously injured both inside and outside the premises, and these factors left the Panel with not option but to take action.

 

The Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and in light of the relevant policy and guidance unanimously resolved the following modifications to the premises licence:

 

a.       The Supply of alcohol – For consumption on & off the premises:

 

Monday – Sunday                            11.00 – 03.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    11.00 – 03.00hrs

                  

b.       The Provision of Regulated Entertainment comprising:

 

Recorded music:

 

Monday – Sunday                            11.00 – 03.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    11.00 – 03.00hrs

 

c.       Performance of live music:

 

Monday – Sunday                            11.00 – 01.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    11.00 – 01.00hrs

 

          d.       Provision of late night refreshment:

 

Monday – Sunday                            23.00 – 03.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    23.00 – 03.00hrs

 

e.       The Opening hours of the premises:

 

Monday – Sunday                            11.00 – 03.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    11.00 – 03.00hrs

 

f.       Last admittance

 

Monday – Sunday                            02.00hrs

Bank holidays                                    02.00hrs

 

 

g.       Door staff employed at Pics Bar Limited will be members of the Approved Contractor Scheme.

 

Councillor Jones reminded the DPS and the Licence Holder of the conditions of the existing Premises Licence in respect of the operation of effective CCTV which states:

 

The premise is to operate an effective CCTV system which is to be maintained in good working order at all times the premises is open for business. The type of system and the number / positioning of cameras is to be agreed in liaison with the police. The location of cameras will be recorded on the plan attached to the licence. The recording medium (e.g. discs / tapes / hard drive etc) and associated images are to be retained and securely stored for a minimum period of 22 days and are to be made available to the police / Authorised Officers of the Licensing Authority upon request. The premises licence holder or designated premises supervisor [delete as necessary] is to provide the police with the contact details of at least two members of staff (or other person(s) ) who are trained and familiar with the operation of the equipment so that, at the expense of the premises licence holder, they are able to check that the equipment is operating properly and that they are able to provide copies of recorded data upon request and within no more than 12 hours from the time of the request.  The premises licence holder or the Designated Premises Supervisor must notify the licensing office or the Police in the event of CCTV breakdown or malfunction as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 24hrs.

 

The Chair thanked all of those present for their attendance.

 

 

              Prior to the Hearing, the Licensing Authority receivedan application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Pics Bar at 30-32 Market Street, Bury.

 

              The application was outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel.

 

              Written representations and statements in relation to the application from GMP were submitted to the Panel.  

 

All documentary evidence had been served on all parties in advance of the Hearing. 

 

The Panel heard oral representations from Mr Paul Douglas, Licensing Consultant representing the Premises Licence Holder, The Dog House Bury Limited. These set out the basis of a request for the Licensing Hearings Panel to adjourn the hearing as the Premises Licence Holder’s Legal representative, Ms Sarah Clover had been unable to attend the hearing due to unforeseen circumstances. 

 

Mr Douglas explained that the request to adjourn was not only in the interest of the Premises Licence Holder but also in the wider public interest.  Mr Douglas explained that the Licensees business and the livelihoods of the Director, DPS and other members of staff would be adversely affected without the opportunity to have a fair hearing and that it would be in the public interest and in accordance with their human rights that they be given an opportunity to fully defend the application. Mr Douglas also made reference to Ms Clover’s written Opinion on adjournment. Further, Mr Douglas explained that he was not in a position to present the case on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder.

 

The Panel then heard representations from GMP’s representative Mr David Kent, Solicitor. In response to the request to adjourn the hearing, he stated on behalf of GMP that the Panel should not to agree to adjourn the hearing and should go ahead and consider the application from GMP for a Review of the Premises Licence.  

 

Mr Kent explained that the Licensing Authority had agreed the date of this hearing with the Legal Representative acting on behalf of the Licensee after having already changed the date of the hearing to accommodate a request to do so submitted on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder. This was due to both Ms Clover and the Premises Licence Holder’s representative being unavailable. Mr Kent stated that any further delay in relation to this application from GMP could be a public safety concern, that Mr Douglas should be able to present the case on behalf of the Licence Holder and that the late request for an adjournment was unacceptable. 

 

The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer on the issues raised by both parties in relation to the Panel’s powers to extend time limits set out in the licensing legislation if it is in the public interest, to adjourn hearings and as to human rights.  The Panel then left the meeting to consider the issues presented.

 

Decision

 

The Panel returned to the Hearing room to give its decision.

 

Having heard from Mr Douglas, the Premises Licence Holder’s representative and Mr Kent, GMP’s representative, the Panel decided to adjourn consideration of the application from Greater Manchester Police for the Review of the Premises Licence for Pics Bar, Market Street, Bury.

 

Panel members were on balance satisfied that it was in the public interest to adjourn the hearing. It noted that albeit the basis of the review related specifically to matters impacting on the licensing objectives of crime and disorder and public safety, it was also mindful of the need to ensure a full and fair hearing for all parties involved, so as to ensure that the decision making process was not undermined and also that those whose livelihoods may be affected, had every opportunity to fully present their case.

 

The application for the Review of the Premises Licence for Pics Bar was therefore adjourned to Tuesday 10 May, 2016 at 1.30 pm at the Town Hall, Bury.

 

The Chair thanked all of those present for their attendance.

 

 

              Prior to the Hearing, the licensing authority receivedtwo applications pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), for reviews of the Premises Licences in respect of Bellini in Ramsbottom and La Capannina Ristorante in Unsworth.

 

              The applications were outlined in the two reports presented to members of the Panel.

 

              Written representations and statements in relation to the applications from GMP were submitted to the Panel, including a bundle of documents which contained exempt information which was not for disclosure to members of the public pursuant to section 100D to the Local Government Act 1972, as it contained information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime pursuant to the schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 7 of the said Act.

 

All documentary evidence had been served on all parties in advance of the Hearing. 

 

The Panel heard oral representations from GMP’s representative, Mr Richardson. These set out the basis of the applications for  review of the premises licences, as detailed in their applications attached to the reports of the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

The Panel then heard representations from Mr Williams, Solicitor, representing the Premises Licence Holders, Chioggia Limited and Il Tavolo Limited, and heard from the Director of both companies and other witnesses.

 

The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of GMP, Mr Williams and the witnesses that had attended on behalf of the Premises Licence Holders. All parties were offered the opportunity to question each other. All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases. The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in March 2015.

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

Decision

 

The Panel returned to the Hearing room to give its decision.

 

Having heard from Mr Richardson, GMP’s representative, Mr Williams the Licence Holder’s representative, the companies’ director and the witnesses in attendance, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

All of the evidence was considered with care and it was established that having understood the request for review and equally understanding the representations made, on balance, the Panel found there were causes for concern so far as the promotion of the following Licensing Objectives were concerned at both premises;

 

·         the Prevention of Crime and Disorder

·         Public Safety.

In respect of Bellini the Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, to Revoke the Licence.

 

In respect of La Capannina Ristorante the Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, to Revoke the Licence.

 

The Chair informed those present of their right of appeal within 21 days of receipt of the written decision to Bury and Rochdale Magistrates’ Court.

 

 

 

Delegated decision:

That in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 and Section 100(A)(4)  schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972 (Category 7), the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of        information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a crime, and the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in the hearing taking place in public.

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted for a Premises Licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, for the supply of alcohol to the public in relation to Ethane Convenience Store, 19 Bolton Road, Bury, BL9 0EY.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing  Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from a number of local businesses and from Greater Manchester Police.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided in the report to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant Mr Yohannes.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from Greater Manchester Police.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Police. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Police.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from Ms Beckett Murray and Mr Aslam who had raised objections.

 

The Panel asked questions of the objectors. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the objectors.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in   March 2015

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1.    The proposed licensed premises are located in the town centre of Bury, next to a takeaway and close to other businesses in particular a number of other licensed premises.

2.    There is only one other licensed premise with the town centre of Bury licensed for the supply of alcohol for the consumption off the premises. This licensed premise sells fine wines and craft beers, and has shorter opening hours. The other premises on the edge of the Town Centre are large concerns, namely M&S, Tesco and Asda.

3.    The proposed licensed premises proximity to taxi ranks and other drop off areas may lead to people purchasing alcohol and drinking before visiting those premises licensed for the consumption of alcohol on the premises.

4.    The Applicant has a 5 year lease of the proposed licensed premises and has been trading alone for 3 months, from 9am to midnight. He would continue to do so if the application were granted.

5.    The Applicant has no previous experience of selling alcohol or working anywhere where alcohol has been sold or supplied.

6.    The Applicant had no proposals re security of himself or the premises in the event of a violent incident occurring, unlike other licensed premises with door staff, CCTV and the like.

7.    The sale of alcohol may encourage people to congregate outside the premises, thereby increasing the risk of alcohol related crime and disorder in the area and in particular affecting local people and businesses.

8.    Based on the Statement produced by Greater Manchester Police from a PC Scott, there have been numerous incidents of crime and disorder and numerous victims of crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour, resulting from the consumption of alcohol, of people in and around the town centre of Bury.

9.    In addition, young people often congregate around off licence premises and there has been a problem with underage drinking in the past and this may reoccur. Youths often approach adults to purchase drink from them.

10.  Bury has a Designated Public Places Order which bans street drinking.

11.  Greater Manchester Police also produced information relating to a number of incidents of violence and youth nuisance during the period December 2014 to November 2015, which occurred in close proximity to the proposed licensed premises.

12.  Based on the Statement produced by Greater Manchester Police from a DS Shaw there has been a further issue with young people as victims of crime and Child Sexual Exploitation. The police have identified ‘hotspot’ areas, one of these being Kay Gardens in the Town Centre where it was noted that young people congregate, drink alcohol and become vulnerable to sexual predators.

13.  Further, a great deal of time and resource has been expended by Greater Manchester Police tackling the crime, violence and anti-social behaviour, resulting from  the consumption of alcohol, and identifying and supporting victims of crime. The grant of the application would therefore have an impact on this.

 

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were causes for concern so far as the promotion of the following Licensing Objectives were concerned;’

 

a.    The prevention of crime and disorder

b.    Public safety

c.    Protection of children from harm.

 

Further, there was insufficient in the Applicants submissions and operating schedule to meet those concerns..

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Refuse the Application for a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application to vary the Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Morrisons, 5 Stanley Road Whitefield.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Manager.

 

One representation in respect of the application was received within the appropriate period, albeit the representor did not attend.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel. All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representation were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations on behalf of the Applicant from Clare Johnson and Kelly Nichols.

 

The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant representatives.

 

The Applicant, through its representatives, was allowed the opportunity to sum up the case. The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in March 2015

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

 

1. The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales.

 

2. The Applicant operates over 500 retail premises in a variety of locations.

 

3. The variation is for an increase of one hour per day.

 

4. The Applicant conducts strict initial and refresher training for staff on the sale of alcohol; ensures strict compliance with the “Challenge 25” policy as well as employing a independent company to “spot check” premises; has till prompts and a detailed refusal log.

 

5. There were no representations in respect of the variations in the licence have been made by any of the responsible authorities, including the police, environmental health, Trading Standards, children’s safeguarding or public health.

 

6. There was no evidence presented that increasing the operating hours on the premises licence by one hour would increase traffic flow, noise, footfall or light into the representer’s home.

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard from the Licensing Unit Manager, Applicant representatives Ms Nichols and Ms Johnson and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representation made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for the Premises Licence.

 

Prior to the Hearing, the licensing authorityreceived an application pursuant to section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, from Mr Leeming, a local resident, for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Montecristo, 271 Bury New Road, Whitefield, Manchester.

 

              The application was outlined in the report presented to members of the Panel by the Licensing Manager.

 

The application for a review of the licence was received within the appropriate period and complied with the procedural requirements within the Licensing Act 2003.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing. The submission from the licence holder for Montecristo was received on 11 August 2015 and was circulated by email to the Panel members. A hard copy of the submission was provided to members prior to the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant (Mr Leeming), the Licence Holder’s representative (Ms Faud) and the licence holder (Mr Miller). The Panel also heard from local resident Mr Greenhalgh who had made a representation in advance of the hearing and had contributed to a petition submitted by Mr Leeming.

 

The Panel also heard representations from GMP (PC Andrew Hayes and PC Clare Watson) and Bury Council Trading Standards officers (Tony Bunn and Neil Lonsdale).

 

The Applicant was invited to explain the reasons for his application and the Panel asked questions of the Applicant.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant and vice versa.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in June 2014

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. The additional conditions circulated at the hearing by the Licence Holder had been agreed with the Police.

 

2. The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales.

 

3. The visits to Montecristo by a Trading Standards officer had identified the substitution of empty bottles of premium brands of alcohol with other brands for sale.

 

4. Enforcement officers are to investigate Tandra private hire booking office located on Bury New Road and take action, as required, to stop private hire vehicles parking on the strictly no parking area of the highway outside the premises. It may be that the office is used by to book vehicles  in the early hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings, which could add to the noise nuisance and disorder in the area

 

5. Enforcement officers are to visit hot food takeaway shops located on Bury New Road in the vicinity of Montecristo to remind shop owners of the hours of operation for the premises as detailed on the licence. It was noted that customers of Montecristo would visit the takeaways and consume food on the benches located at the front of Montecristo before taking a private hire vehicle or leaving on foot. This disturbed local residents because of the noise they made, particularly as they had been consuming alcohol. Representatives from GMP noted that this often causes people to raise their voices and the evidence from the local residents supported this 

 

6. The evidence provided by the Applicant has been supported by GMP.

 

7. The Panel accept that there is an element of public disorder and public nuisance and noise in the early hours resulting from individuals congregating at the private hire booking office and hot food takeaway. On occasion this appears to be in the periods both before and after the Montecristo has closed on Saturday and Sunday mornings. The closing times of the Montecristo was found to be significant in the timings of the disorder and noise.

 

DELEGATED DECISIONS

 

1.   Having heard from the Licensing Unit Manager, the Applicant, the licence holder’s, the Licence holder, the GMP, Trading Standards officer and the objector in attendance and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and in light of the relevant policy and guidance unanimously resolved the following modifications  to the Montecristo premises licence:

 

The supply of alcohol – for consumption on and off the premises:

 

Monday to Thursday                                              08:00 12:00am

Friday to Saturday                                                 08:00 – 01:00am

 

The provision of regulated entertainment comprising: Exhibition of films, indoor sporting events, playing of recorded music, the provision of facilities for dancing:

 

Monday to Thursday                                              08:00 – 12:30am

Friday to Saturday                                                 08:00 –01:30AM

 

 

Performance of a play, performance of dance, provision of facilities for making music, entertainment of a similar nature to E,F & G:

 

Monday to Thursday                                              10:00 – 12:30am

Friday to Saturday                                                 10:00 – 01:30am

 

Late night refreshment:

 

Monday to Thursday                                              23:00 – 01:00am

Friday to Saturday                                                 23:00 – 02:00am

 

The opening hours of the premises:

 

Monday to Thursday                                              08:00 – 01:00am

Friday to Saturday                                                 08:00 – 02:00am

Sunday                                                                 09:00 – 01:00am

 

2.   That the following additional conditions be added to the Montecristo premises licence:

1.     The premise is to operate an effective CCTV system which is to be maintained in good working order at all times the premises is open for business. The recording medium (e.g. discs/ tapes/ hard drive etc) and associated images are to be retained and securely stored for a minimum of 28 days and are to be made available to the police / Authorised Officers of the Licensing Authority upon request. The premises licence holder or Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) is to ensure trusted members of staff (or other person(s)) who are trained and familiar with the operation of the equipment so that, at the expense of the premises licence holder, they are able to check that the equipment is operating properly and that they are able to provide copies of recorded data upon request and within no more than 12 hours from the time of the request. The premise licence holder or Designated Premises Supervisor must notify the licensing office or the Police in the event of CCTV breakdown or malfunction as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours.

On an annual basis the premises licence holder or the DPS is to ensure that the CCTV system has been checked and maintained to any recognised specification and is shown to be in working order a all times.

2.     A written record shall be kept every time images are recorded by CCTV and shall include details of the recording medium used, the time and date recording commenced and finished. This record shall identify the person responsible for the recording and shall be signed by him /her. Where the recording is on a removable medium (i.e. videotape, compact disc, flash card etc.) a secure storage system to store those recording mediums shall be provided.

3.     A Personal Licence Holder must be on the premises on Friday and Saturday from 21:00 until close of business.

4.     Staff training shall take place on the Licensing Act and Licensing objectives when employment commences and every six months, a written record of this training to be maintained and made available to the Police and any authorised officer of the Council for inspection on request.

5.     Prominent, clear and legible notices must be displayed at all exits requesting that customers respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and area quietly.

6.     Music and associated other noise sources (e.g. DJs and amplified voices) shall not be generally audible inside noise sensitive property at any time. The DPS or member of staff is to carry out noise level checks of the surrounding outside area whenever entertainment is being provided taking action to reduce noise levels where there is a potential for nuisance to be caused.

7.     All external doors and windows, apart from the outer lobby door, are to be kept closed when live entertainment or recorded music is in progress. When the outer lobby door is open the internal lobby door will be fitted with a self closing arm and be kept closed apart from ingress and egress.

8.     The external area to the rear of the premises is to be closed to customers at 22:00. Staff will monitor this to ensure no customers enter this area after 22:00.

9.     Management, staff and SIA door security personnel are to use their best endeavours to prevent persons loitering outside the premises and to ensure that persons refused entry or ejected are asked to leave the vicinity of the premises if it is safe to do so.

10.  The premises to operate the following customer dispersal policy, the purpose of which is to ensure, so far as it is possible, that minimum disturbance or nuisance is caused to the neighbourhood and to ensure that the operation of the premises makes the minimum impact in relation to potential nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

This will be achieved by exercising pro-active measures towards and at the end of the evening. By ensuring that this Dispersal Policy document is brought to the attention of Management and Staff we will seek to encourage the efficient, controlled, safe and gradual dispersal of our patrons during our closing period.

 

a.    Music – consideration will be given to the volume levels, type of music played coupled with the usage of lighting levels designed to encourage the gradual dispersal of patrons during the last part of the evening. The gradual dispersal of customers shall commence well before the premises closes with members of staff and door staff instructed to encourage customers to leave in an orderly manner.

b.    Door personnel and management staff will be employed outside the premises and will assist with the orderly and gradual dispersal of patrons.

c.    Staff Members (including door personnel0 will advise patrons to leave the premises quickly and quietly.

d.   Notices will be displayed requesting our customers to leave quietly and in an orderly manner and their attention will be drawn to these notices by members of staff (including door personnel).

e.    We will ensure the removal of all bottles and drinking receptacles from any patron before exiting the premises.

f.     We will actively discourage our customers from assembling outside the premises at the end of the evening.

g.   Consideration will also be given to staff departures. Staff will be instructed to leave the premises quietly and to request that any waiting taxis/private hire vehicles do not leave their engines running or sound their horn whilst waiting.

11.  The premises will operate a “Challenge 25” proof of age policy and signage to this effect is to be prominently displayed within the premises. Persons who appear to be under the age of 25 must produce for thorough scrutiny by staff, proof of identity/age before being sold/supplied alcohol. Only a passport or photo-card driving licence or accepted as proof of age card bearing the official ‘PASS’ accreditation hologram should be accepted as proof of age.

12.  The premise is to maintain a refusals book to record the details of incidents / descriptions of individuals whenever a member of staff has refused to sell alcohol to a person suspected of being under the age of 18years. The book must be made available to the police / authorised officers of the Licensing Authority on request.

13.  The management will ensue that there is no refilling of small premium bottles from larger different branded bottles and that receipts and invoices are kept for all spirits purchased for use in the bar.

14.  Management will ensure that bar staff are fully trained to the procedures behind the bar including the storage of alcohol and the disposal of empty bottles.

15.  The seating furniture in the front external area will be stacked and secured no later than 12:00am on Saturday morning and Sunday morning. The seating will be stacked in a way that will ensure people cannot utilise the furniture for sitting on.

16.  No drinks will be consumed or taken outside after 23:00.

17.  An adequate number of licensed door supervisors will be on duty as appropriate to any risk assessment. As a minimum, two members of door staff are to be employed at the venue on Friday and Saturday evenings from 21:00 hours until close of business or until the last customer has left the immediate vicinity.

18.  Children under the age of 16 will not be allowed on the premises after 22:00 unless attending a pre-arranged private function and they are accompanied by a responsible adult.

19.  The premises will operate a last admittance time of 01:00am Saturday and Sunday.

20.  Bottles will not be disposed into the outside bins between the hours of 22:00 and 10:00.

21.  Customers will only be able to smoke to the left as they exit the premises from the front entrance/ exit in the designated smoking area.

22.  Smokers will be monitored by the door supervisors on a Friday and Saturday night to ensure they are not causing disturbance.

23.  All door staff will receive rigorous training in relation to the dispersal policy and how to implement this effectively.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Jones

Chair

 

 

 

(The meeting started at 2:00pm and finished at 5:15pm)

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted by the Applicant. The application was for a Premises Licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, for the supply of alcohol to the public.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Deputy Licensing Officer.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Premises User and vice versa.

 

The Applicant was allowed the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Panel considered the written representations from the petitioners but found there was no evidence to support their concerns regarding increased noise nuisance, anti social behaviour or littering

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in June 2013

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application submitted by the Applicant. The application was for a Premises Licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003, for the supply of alcohol to the public.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Officer.

 

All written representations were contained within the written submissions provided to the Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, the report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from Greater Manchester Police.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Police. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Police.

 

The Panel heard oral representation from the objectors.

 

The Panel asked questions of the objectors. All parties were offered the opportunity to question the objectors.

 

The Applicant was allowed the opportunity to sum up their case.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Panel considered the oral and written representations from the  neighbours and Greater Manchester Police  and found there was evidence to support their concerns regarding crime and disorder, anti social behaviour, increased noise nuisance, or littering

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in  October 2014

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. Greater Manchester Police referred to three incidents that had occurred at the premises which had been of a violent nature, one of which had involved Mr Howarth It was noted that following the incidents of 2 May and 25 April 2015 no calls had been made to Police from staff at the pub. On both occasions attempts were made by staff to clean the scene thus impeding the police enquiry. It was also noted that the applicant Director , Mr Howarth had been named as the perpetrator of the assault dated January 2014 and that the CCTV at the premises  was said not to be working at the time in question thus impeding the police enquiry. It was also noted that “R” – the previous licence holder had let Mr Howarth out of the back door after the incident.

 

2. The neighbours’ reports of anti social behaviour including persons from the pub urinating in the street, faeces in the street, fighting, littering and excessive noise connected to  the pub  were found to be significant  by the Panel. The issues raised by the residents and Greater Manchester Police tended to lend support to each other.   ---

 

3. Representation from Greater Manchester Police included intelligence which highlighted concerns regarding the relationship between Mr Howarth and ‘R’. Intelligence suggested that Mr Howarth and “R” had a close association and nothing would change in the way the pub was run. “R” was the previous premises licence holder. The premises licence was revoked, due to crime and disorder.   GMP asked the Panel to take note of Para 9.12 of the Guidance issued by the Home Office under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 concerning representations by the Police. Due note was taken of this by the Panel

 

4. The Applicant disagreed that there was any association between himself and the previous premises licence holder “R”. He disputed that “R” would be concerned in the running of the pub in the future. He said that the statement of the witness made in January 2014 claiming that “R” and the Applicant were friends was incorrect.

 

5. The Panel preferred the submissions made by the Police concerning the association between the applicant and “R”.

 

6.  It was noted by the Panel that the applicant was willing to accept further conditions to the licence and had also agreed to further limit the time for music to be played.  However, it was found that this was insufficient to prevent continued crime and disorder and nuisance from the premises

 

7. It was noted by the Panel that the applicant was a man of previous good character.

 

8 The applicant asked the Panel to look at the applicant, and his designated premises supervisor rather than the history of the pub. However, the Panel found that the recent history of violence where members of the public were injured and  others were put at risk of serious injury was a significant and important consideration when deciding whether a premises licence should be granted. In addition the history of nuisance and anti social behaviour was an important consideration.

 

9.  No compelling argument was put forward by the Applicant  to satisfy the Panel that he  would take steps  to prevent   further incidents of    crime and disorder and to  preserve public safety and prevent  public nuisance .

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard all the oral submissions and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four  Licensing Objectives were concerned.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Refuse the Application for a Premises Licence as set out in the report.

 

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application for a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Havana Cafe, 56-58 Bridge Street, Ramsbottom

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from local residents.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel. All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant Mr Armstrong and Mr Daubney. The Panel also heard from local residents, Mr and Mrs Stevenson objecting to the application

 

The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant and vice versa.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases. The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in October 2012

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. Conditions appended to the report, from the Police, had been agreed with the Applicant.

 

2. The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales.

 

3. Following further discussions with the Police and Planning Department the opening hours and hours for the supply of alcohol had been amended from the original application.

 

4. Further to (3) above the hours applied for in respect of the supply of alcohol were 12 noon until 8pm Monday to Sunday. Amended opening hours were 8am-8pm Monday to Sunday.

 

5.  The side door to the premises would solely be used for residential purposes with no customer access/egress other than as an emergency fire door.

 

6. Mr Armstrong, the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor, would be living above the premises.

 

7. Deliveries to the premises would be directed to the rear of the property where a private car park is situated.

 

 

DECISION

 

Having heard from the Licensing Manager, the Applicant Mr Armstrong  and Mr Daubney, along with the objectors Mr and Mrs Stevenson and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties decided as follows.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned, particularly in view of the amended hours and fact that suitable conditions would be attached to the licence as agreed with GMP

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for the Premises Licence, subject to the conditions set out at Appendix 1 (with the exception of the condition relating to the closure of the premises to customers 30 minutes after licensable activities have ceased).

 

 

 

Prior to the Hearing the authority received an application for a premises licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Ours Cafe Bar, 6 Bank Street, Walshaw, Bury.

 

The application was as detailed in the report which was presented to the Members of the Panel by the Licensing Unit Manager.

 

Representations in respect of the application were received within the appropriate period from 13 objectors and local residents.

 

All written representations were contained within the report to Panel.

 

All documentary evidence comprising the application, report provided with the agenda and representations were served on all parties in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel heard oral representations from the Applicant’s representative, Mr Holden and the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor Ms La Vecchia. The Panel also heard from local residents objecting to the application

 

The Panel heard no other representations.

 

The Panel asked questions of the Applicant’s representatives.

 

All parties were offered the opportunity to question the Applicant’s representatives and vice versa.

 

All parties were allowed the opportunity to sum up their respective cases.

 

The Panel then duly retired to consider the application and all of the information provided.

 

The Members of the Panel were advised by the Legal Officer as to their duties under Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 to at all times consider the promotion of the Licensing Objectives, these being:

 

1)   the prevention of crime and disorder

2)   public safety

3)   the prevention of public nuisance

4)   the protection of children from harm

 

The Members were also advised of their duties in carrying out those functions in relation to:

 

a)   the Council’s published Statement of Licensing Policy

b)   the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State as contained in section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was updated in June 2014

 

In addition Members were advised to give appropriate weight to the steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives and the representations presented by all parties.

 

The Panel also had regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular that everyone has the right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A fair balance between competing interests must be considered.

 

FINDINGS

 

The following facts were found:

 

1. Conditions appended to the report, from the Police had been agreed with the Applicant’s representatives.

 

2. The Applicant had complied with all necessary procedural requirements laid down by the Licensing Act 2003 including giving public notice within the required timescales.

 

3. The sale of alcohol will be incidental to the main business as a cafe.

 

4. The premises will ordinarily close for business a 6pm.

 

5. The Applicant’s representative agreed to include a condition that smokers will be directed away from residents and the footpath area to the front of the premises on Bank Street, to the allocated smoking area at the rear of the premises.

 

6. The premises will benefit from lighting to the front and rear.

 

 

DELEGATED DECISION

 

Having heard from the Licensing Unit Manager, the Applicant’s representatives, along with the objectors and having considered all of the documentation before it, the Panel considered the merits of the case and in accordance with its duties and in light of the relevant policy and guidance unanimously resolved to grant the application.

 

The evidence was considered with care and it was established that following the evidence of all parties, having understood the application and equally understanding the representations made, on balance the Panel found there were no real causes for concern so far as the promotion of the four Licensing Objectives were concerned, although the Panel did note that the premises are located in a primarily residential area and that due to the locality, to prevent the risk of public nuisance and risk to public safety and in line with the Applicant’s evidence regarding its proposed regular closing time, it felt a control measure was required as to the times relating to the sale of alcohol.

 

The Panel therefore considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate, based on all of the evidence, To Grant the Application for the Premises Licence subject to the followingamendments to the operating schedule and conditions:

 

a.    Hours for the sale of alcohol on Monday to Sunday - 11am to 6pm (from 10pm).

2. That a condition be added that smokers will be directed away from the front of the premises on Bank Street to the allocated smoking area at the rear of the premises.

 

3. The conditions agreed with GMP to be attached to the licence. 

 

 

 

Councillor David Jones

Chairman

 

(The meeting started at 2pm and finished at 4pm)

 

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Delegated decision:

 

                   That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 2 August 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The

The Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Gambling Act

 

The 9 week consultation in respect of the Statement of Principles under the Gambling Act 2005 has now commenced and this will end on 5 October 2018.  A further report will be presented to the next Licensing and safety Panel on 18 October 2018 for consideration.

 

·         Revocation and appeal to the Magistrates’ court in respect of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence

 

The Licensing Service, in consultation with the Chair, revoked a Private Hire Driver’s Licence on 1 August 2018 with immediate effect following information received from Greater Manchester Police about the driver’s conduct.  On 3 August 2018 the driver had an appeal considered at Manchester Crown Court in respect of a four month suspension for failing to take a guide dog in his Private Hire vehicle.  The Court agreed that the appeal against that suspension should not proceed when the licence in question has since been revoked and the matter was adjourned until 5 October 2018 in order to update the Crown Court on the driver’s pending appeal against revocation.

 

·         Decision of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

 

The Council took prosecution proceedings against a Mr Molnar in relation to the offences of bringing in to the country five miniature ‘teacup’ dachshund puppies and running an illegal pet shop from his home in Prestwich. Mr Molnar pleaded guilty at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 7 March 2018. The puppies were offered for sale on various internet sites when they were much younger than the age suggested on the vaccination card and therefore too young to have been legally brought into the UK.  When tested, the puppies did not have rabies immunity.  Mr Molnar, who now lives in Dartford, Kent, was given a 270 hour Community Order and ordered to pay compensation and was banned from operating a pet shop or boarding establishment for ten years.

 

Mr Molnar was registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and as a result of these convictions, on 2 August 2018, a Disciplinary Committee found that in view of the seriousness of Mr Molnar’s conduct, the risk to public and animals and the fact that the convictions were directly linked to his veterinary practice, that he was unfit to practise.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

 

                   That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 14 June 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

The Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·           Enforcement Operation

 

On 5 July 2018 a multi-agency operation took place with the Licensing Service, Police, DVSA and HMRC at Tops Park, Bolton Road West, Ramsbottom, in which 15 licensed vehicles were stopped. Of these vehicles, one was prohibited by the DVSA due to failed indicators and the Licensing Service suspended the vehicle and following discussions with the driver, the plates were removed.  Three drivers were warned of their obligations as a driver due to incorrect signage on their vehicle, which have since been presented correctly and a private hire driver was not wearing his private hire driver’s badge, for which he received a warning.

ice

·           Common Minimum Standards – Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Trade

 

On 5 July 2018, the Chair of Licensing and the Licensing Unit Manager attended a meeting at the headquarters of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which was attended by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, to discuss issues Local Authorities are experiencing in respect of common minimum standards in relation to out of town vehicles driving within their Borough.  Following this meeting on 11 July 2018, the Licensing Unit Manger attended a meeting of the Greater Manchester Licensing Managers group to further discuss issues and updates will follow.

 

·           Trade Liaison Meeting

 

Minutes were provided to the members of the Licensing and Safety Panel of the Taxi Trade Liaison meeting on 11 July 2018, which was attended by representatives of the Hackney carriage and Private Hire Trade.

 

·           Multi-Agency Visits – Gambling commission

 

On 25 June 2018, the Deputy Licensing and Licensing Enforcement Officers took part in joint enforcement visits with the Gambling Commission, in which a betting shop and an adult gambling centre were visited but no issues were found.

 

·           Appeal to Crown Court

 

The Licensing Service are currently defending an appeal at the Crown Court in respect of a revocation of a hackney carriage driver’s licence, following a decision on 19 October 2017 by the Licensing and safety Panel.  The appeal is now listed for a full day on 13 September 2018.

 

·           Review Application

 

A Licensing Hearings Panel has been scheduled for consideration of the Sir Robert Peel, Sunnybank Road, Bury, following a review application from an interested party.

 

·           Safeguarding Training

 

The Licensing Service are currently in the process of reviewing the safeguarding training taking into account the common minimum standards and further updates will follow.

 

·           Application Process – Pre-requisites

 

A review of the pre-requisites required prior to making an application to become a licensed hackney carriage and private hire driver is currently under way.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

A report by the Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services) was submitted in respect of the Gambling Act 2005, section 349, which requires the Local Authority to prepare and publish a Statement of Principles at least every three years and the existing Statement was agreed by council on 9 December 2015.

 

The Statement as presented can be accepted, amended or rejected but to comply with the statute, a revised Statement has to be agreed by Council on 28 November 2018 and be in place by 31 January 2019, in order to fulfil its duties under the Act.

 

The Statement has been reviewed and updated in light of Gambling Commission guidance and it was recommended that approval be given for a consultation to be undertaken and a further report presented to the Licensing and Safety Panel in due course once the consultation has finished.

 

It was agreed:

 

That members approve a consultation to be undertaken.

 

A report by the Assistant Director (Localities) was submitted in respect of applications considered under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936.  Officers of Environmental Health attended the meeting to respond to queries and issues from the members of the Licensing and safety Panel and explained that Bury Council has not previously received an application for a campsite, therefore the Council are required to determine any applications that are received. The Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended, indicate that this is a Council function and under the Council’s constitution is delegated to the Licensing and Safety Panel.  A licence is required if the site is operating for more than 42 consecutive days or more than 60 days on any 12 consecutive months.

 

It was agreed:

 

That members adopt the proposed standard conditions in respect of a campsite under the Public Health Act and Caravan sites and Control of development Act 1960, Public Health Act 1936.

 

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

In relation to Licensing Hearings Panels, the Licensing Unit Manager reported the following:

 

·           The Licensing Service had received notification that a Personal Licence holder had received a relevant offence under schedule 4 of the Licensing Act 2003.  A Licensing Hearings Panel was convened on 18 April 2018 and after hearing all the evidence, the Panel considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate to suspend the Personal Licence for a period of four months.

 

·           The Licensing Service received an application in respect of Best one, Chesham Fold Road, Bury and Greater Manchester Police, in their capacity as a responsible authority, made representations.  A Licensing Hearings Panel was convened on 18 April 2018, however, it was requested by the Applicant’s Solicitor that the meeting be adjourned from this date and the meeting was subsequently rearranged for 26 April 2018.  Following that meeting and on the evidence provided, the Licensing Hearings Panel agreed to grant the transfer.

 

·           The Licensing Unit Manager provided written statistics of work dealt with by the Licensing Service during the municipal year 2017/18, which included a breakdown of the number of licences, registrations, consents and permits processed, totalling 3,625.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

 

                   That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 20 March 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

A number of local residents attended the meeting in respect of item 7 on the Agenda, Licensing of a campsite and the Chair explained        they would have an opportunity to raise issues and ask questions when the relevant item was addressed.

 

Mr Charles Oakes, of the Hackney Drivers’ Association Ltd, submitted a written question to the Licensing and Safety Panel requesting a second MOT testing station, in addition to the station used at Bradley Fold.

 

The Licensing Unit Manager explained that following meetings with the Greater Manchester Authorities, a more co-ordinated approach to taxi and private hire vehicle licensing would be adopted throughout, to develop a common minimum standard which could include issues with testing stations.  Mr Oakes had been informed that a generic report would be adopted by all the Greater Manchester Authorities by April 2019.  Currently there were no issues in relation to drivers being able to get an appointment for an MOT test and it was agreed that for consistency and fairness to all drivers, there would be no change to the MOT testing station presently being used at Bradley Fold.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the question and proposed response be noted. 

 

 

A report by the Assistant Director (Localities) was submitted in respect of an application for the approval of a campsite licence     under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936, in respect of the Paddock, Sheep Hey Farm, Shuttleworth, Bury, by Mrs Carol Rothwell. 

 

Officers explained that their focus is ensuring the safety and wellbeing of those using the site and the amenities provided. An initial site visit was undertaken by Officers of the Council’s Housing Standards Department and the Fire Service on 7 November 2017.  A satisfactory Fire Risk Assessment for the campsite was obtained by the Fire Service and further advice was given by Officers to Mrs Rothwell on the requirements in terms of conditions to meet the campsite licence.

 

                     Planning permission was granted for a campsite following an application from Mrs Rothwell on 26 May 2016.  Permission was granted for 20 pitches (tents only, no caravans or motor homes are permitted) and the siting of 2 portaloos and showers and a second site visit was undertaken on 12 April 2018 by Housing Standards and the Fire Service.

 

                     Mrs Rothwell attended the Licensing and Safety meeting along with a number of local residents, who opposed the licence, who had also submitted an email to the Licensing and Safety Panel members prior to the meeting with their objections.  The Chair granted permission for a spokesperson to voice their concerns at the meeting. These concerns included enforcing the conditions of the planning application, sufficient levels of insurance of the site, the provision of passing places along the narrow single track lane leading to the campsite and properties, which must only be via Leaches Road and the position of the portaloos and showers, which were in close proximity to the residents’ houses.

 

                     Members of the Licensing and Safety Panel asked various questions of Mrs Rothwell in respect of the application and raised issues in relation to the objections submitted by the local residents.

                    

                     The Council Solicitor explained that under the provisions of the Public Health Act, if an application for a campsite licence is submitted and the local authority do not grant it with conditions attached, it is deemed granted unconditional after 4 weeks. There is no consideration of whether the applicant is fit and proper, but rather whether the site is suitable taking into account such things as the provision of water, sanitation, no risk of fire and other such issues. The conditions proposed are to deal with those matters.

 

It was agreed:

 

                     To grant a licence with conditions attached with the report in relation to The Paddock, Sheep Hey Farm, Shuttleworth, for 20 pitches.   

 

Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         In relation to Licensing Hearings Panels, the Licensing Unit Manager reported the following:

 

The Licensing Service received an application for a new premises licence in respect of Polka, 20 Parkhills Road, Bury, due to the premises licence being surrendered on 21 September 2017 by the previous owner.  On 26 September 2017 an application to transfer the premises licence was made by another Applicant, however, representation was made by Greater Manchester Police and the application was refused at a Licensing Hearings Panel on 31 October 2017.

 

A further application for the grant of a new licence was subsequently submitted and Greater Manchester Police, in their capacity as a responsible authority, made representations which were considered at a Licensing Hearings Panel on 7 February 2018 and after hearing all the evidence in respect of the new licence application, the Panel considered it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for a premises licence.

 

·         In relation to the agreement of Common Minimum Standards across Greater Manchester, it was reported that the Licensing Unit Manager and the Chair of the Licensing and Safety Panel attended an event at Dukinfield Town Hall on 8 February 2018 where the matter was discussed with the principle being to explore a more co-ordinated approach to Taxi and PHV Licensing and to develop minimum standards for Greater Manchester, looking at policies around drivers, vehicles and operators.  Following a three month consultation with the trade, it was hoped to have one generic report to adopt provisions, by April 2019.

 

·         It was reported that a prosecution in relation to the illegal landing of puppies and unlicensed Pet Shop Offences had been heard at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 7 March 2018. Mr Viktor Molnar pleaded guilty to offences under the Rabies order 1974 (importation of dogs, cats and other mammals) and sections 10, 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and to an offence under the Pet Animals Act 1951 for using his premises in Prestwich as a pet shop without a licence.

 

Mr Molnar was given a 270 hour Community Order and disqualified from operating a pet shop or a boarding establishment for ten years.  He must also pay compensation to a purchaser of a puppy from Scotland to cover purchase and quarantine costs and to pay a contribution to prosecution costs of £2,500.  Mr Molnar was registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which will be contacted over his fitness to continue as a practising vet. 

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

 

                   That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 13 February 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report in relation to introducing a medical exemption policy under the Equality Act 2010.  The Equality Act 2010 means that service providers must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ or changes to take account of the needs of disabled employees and customers. 

 

Bury Council is committed to an accessible public transport system in which disabled people have the same opportunities to travel as other members of society.  Taxis and private hire vehicles are a vital link in the transport chain.  It is important that people who use wheelchairs or assistance dogs can have confidence that drivers will carry them and their wheelchair or assistance dog and at no extra charge.  A driver who fails to comply with all requirements of the Equality Act 2010 may be guilty of an offence and is at risk of prosecution, subject to any prescribed exemptions.

 

Currently Bury Council does not have a policy which permits licensed hackney carriage/private hire drivers to apply for a medical exemption

under the Equality Act 2010, therefore the Licensing Service have drafted a policy to ensure that drivers who have allergies/medical

conditions which do not allow them to comply with the requirements of the Act can apply for an exemption. 

 

It was agreed:

 

·         That the policy be approved and

·         To delegate the issuing of exemption certificates to the Head of Service for Trading Standards and Licensing, or the Licensing Unit Manager/Deputy Licensing Officer in consultation with the Chairperson of the Licensing and Safety Panel.

 

Delegated decision:

 

      That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 11 January 2018, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act  1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during  consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  From 8 December 2017 until 19 January 2018 there have been 16 assessments carried out, of which 13 passed, 3 failed and none failed to attend.

 

·         In relation to the Taxi Liaison meeting which was held on 18 January 2018 with representatives from the Hackney and Private Hire trade, a representative from the Council’s Community Cohesion section attended to propose PREVENT training for all drivers which is part of the UK terrorism strategy to stop individuals becoming involved in extremist activity.  A copy of the minutes from the meeting would be circulated to members of the Licensing and Safety Panel.

 

As a result of questions by members of the Panel, the Licensing Unit Manager reported that:-

 

·         A Licensing Hearings Panel had been convened in relation to an application for a premises licence in respect of Polka, 20 Parkhills Road, Bury.  The previous licence holder had surrendered their licence. A transfer application had been made, but was refused by the Licensing Hearings Panel on a previous occasion. An application for a new premises licence had therefore been made. Representations were received from Greater Manchester Police and the meeting was held on 7 February 2018, however, the Panel were not satisfied that documentation in respect of the application was acceptable and the application did not meet the Licensing Objectives and therefore the Licensing Hearings Panel refused the application.

 

·         The Chair of the Licensing and Safety Panel and the Licensing Unit Manager had attended a meeting in Dukinfield along with representatives from all the Greater Manchester Authorities’ Licensing Services.  The reason for this meeting and subsequent planned future meetings is the aim for consistency throughout all authorities in respect of all private and hackney carriage vehicles and licence holders, meeting the common minimum standard required.  This would include knowledge and pre-assessment tests etc. for drivers and the age, emissions, air quality etc. in relation to the vehicles.

 

It was intended that when a proposal had been finalised and agreed, there would be a three month consultation period after the election in May 2018 and then Transport for Greater Manchester would conduct a public consultation and finally one report would be sent to all AGMA Licensing and Safety Panels for agreement to adopt.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

     Delegated decision:

 

                   That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 28 November 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

                   The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  From 10 November 2017 until 8 December 2017 there have been 8 assessments carried out, of which 6 passed, 2 failed and none failed to attend.

 

·         In relation to Licensing Hearings Panels, the Licensing Unit Manager reported the following:

 

o   The Licensing Service received an application to vary the Designated Premises Supervisor in respect of the Wellington Hotel, 338 Bolton Road, Bury and the hearing was convened for 6 December 2017, however, the representation was withdrawn prior to the hearing, following mediation with the Police, therefore this application was not heard by a Licensing Panel.

 

o   The Licensing Service received an application to review the premises licence in respect of the White Rooms, 254 Bury New Road, Whitefield, from Greater Manchester Police in their capacity as a Responsible Authority and two interested parties also made representations.  The meeting was convened for 19 December 2017 and the Panel received evidence and considered all oral and written documentation before considering the merits of the case and agreed to vary the conditions of the licence in keeping with the licensing objectives; to prevent crime and disorder, to prevent public nuisance and ensure public safety.  The Panel agreed it reasonable, balanced, appropriate and proportionate based on all the evidence, to vary the conditions and not revoke the licence.

 

o   The Licensing Service received an application to transfer the premises licence and vary the Designated Premises Supervisor in respect of Jason’s Mini Mart. 36 Albion Street, Bury and the hearing was convened for 20 December 2017.  Greater Manchester Police, in their capacity as a Responsible Authority gave notice that they were satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objective.  The Panel’s decision was to refuse both applications.

 

·         Following a decision of the Licensing and Safety Panel on 27 July 2017 to revoke a private hire driver’s licence with immediate effect for failing to maintain his vehicle over a 2 year period, the driver

appealed the Council’s decision to Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court.  The hearing took place on 29 November 2017 and the Magistrates’ decided to dismiss the appeal and the Council were granted costs of £1,570.

 

     It was agreed:

 

                   That the report be noted.

 

Charles Oakes, of the Hackney Drivers’ Association Ltd, submitted a written question to the Licensing            and Safety Panel enquiring as to how someone who is unemployed would raise an amount of approximately £450 to apply for a taxi driver’s licence.

 

                   The Licensing Unit Manager explained that the total cost of a licence would not reach £450, however, there were separate components contained within the fee including the 3 year licence, knowledge test, DBS check, English and Maths assessment and the driving assessment.  Not all of the cost is taken up front only the DBS check and pre-assessment costs.  It is a non-profit fee to cover the charges incurred, some of which are outside the Council’s control. 

 

                   It was also explained that there was a proposal to increase the fee by 3%. This proposal would be advertised in the press, which is a statutory obligation.  The Licensing Unit Manager stated that a comparison of all the Greater Manchester Authority fees would be collated and put before the Licensing and Safety Panel for information.

 

It was agreed:

 

                   That the response be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 19 October 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  From 29 September 2017 until 10 November 2017 there have been 22 assessments carried out, of which 19 passed, 3 failed and none failed to attend.

 

·         In relation to two separate Licensing Hearings Panels convened on 31 October 2017, the Licensing Unit Manager explained that the first for Polka, Parkhills Road, Bury, had presented an application to transfer the surrendered premises licence.  Greater Manchester Police gave notice that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objective.  After considering the transfer application, the Licensing Hearings Panel resolved to reject the application.

The second application was for Grape to Grain, Bridge Street, Ramsbottom, for the grant of a new premises licence and a representation was received from an interested party in respect of the application.  After considering the application, the Licensing Hearings Panel resolved to grant the application.

 

·         In respect of the Equality Act 2010, a complaint was made to the Licensing Service from a member of the public who is blind.  Following an investigation it was decided to instigate prosecution proceedings and on 1 November 2017, a private hire driver attended Manchester Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to an offence under section 170 (3) of the Equality Act 2010, which states ‘the driver of a private hire vehicle commits an offence by failing or refusing to carry out a booking accepted by the operator – if the reason for the failure or refusal is that the disabled person is accompanied by an assistance dog’.  The driver was fined £250.00 with costs of £250.00 and a victim surcharge of £30.00.

 

·         An innovative partnership programme has been developed, ‘Communities in Charge of Alcohol’ (CICA) between the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership, all 10 Greater Manchester Local Authorities, the Royal Society for Public Health, the University of Salford and Public Health England, North West.  The programme aims to kick-start the development of a network of community alcohol champions across Greater Manchester, built on the principle that local communities should be empowered to take charge of their own health and people in communities are best placed to influence their friends, families and colleagues.

 

Radcliffe and the Darnhill area of Rochdale have been selected, due to the infrastructure already available, with the aim to provide community members with knowledge, skills and key contacts to support people to reduce drinking, attend local community events in relation to alcohol and health and provide support for communities to get involved with licensing decisions by helping raise issues with the local authority about venues selling alcohol.

 

The Licensing Unit Manager of Bury along with the Service Manager from Rochdale attended a presentation on the Licensing Act in order to give guidance on the processes that can be used by local communities if they have issues relating to problem premises that hold a premises licence/Club Premises Certificate under the licensing Act 2003.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

 

              Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 5 September 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  From 25 August 2017 until 29 September 2017 there have been 18 assessments carried out of which 13 passed, 5 failed and 0 failed to attend.

 

·         A private hire driver that had appeared before the Licensing and Safety Panel previously in relation to maintaining his vehicle, for which members revoked his licence, has lodged an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court against the Council’s decision.  A case management hearing was listed on 5 October 2017 and the final hearing will be 29 November 2017.

 

·         On 11 July 2017 the Licensing Service refused to renew a hackney carriage vehicle licence in line with the Council’s Policy in relation to the five fault rule.  The proprietor appealed this decision and the case was heard at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 9 October 2017.  The Court was satisfied with some elements of the appeal argument and the appeal was allowed, however, no costs were awarded against the Council.

 

·         Statistics of work carried out by the Licensing Service during the first six months of the financial year 2017/2018 were provided to the Licensing and Safety Panel.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

A report by the Assistant Director (Localities) was submitted to the Licensing and Safety Panel in relation to a request from a licence holder to remove condition 28 from his Animal Boarding Establishment Licence. 

 

The Licensing Unit Manager read the report explaining that the Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963 is the relevant legislation which relates to the boarding of dogs and cats.  The Council has specific conditions which relate to kennels, catteries and boarding of animals at domestic premises.

 

On 12 October 2010, the Licensing and Safety Panel considered and approved licence conditions relating to dog crèches in order to give more specific control in this growing market.          The report stated that in relation to condition 28 which states ‘full males, bitches in season and puppies under six months of age must not be boarded with other dogs’.  Bury Council adopted this particular condition in order to ensure the safety of all dogs attending a crèche.

 

Animal boarding licence AB0003 in the name of Stay N Play Doggy Day Care was issued on the 16 December 2016, valid for one year from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 and licences are renewed annually. 

 

The Licensing and Safety Panel considered a request on 19 January 2017 from Mr Millington, Managing Director of Stay N Play Doggy Day Care to remove condition 28 from the Animal Boarding Establishment Licence, however the Panel decided at that time to refuse the request. The Panel did Mr Millington’s experience and the training undertaken by him and his staff, but felt that as the crèche had only be open for a short time, further time was needed to enable him to demonstrate safety standards were met, the best care and welfare was provided and there were no complaints or concerns raised.

 

Subsequently on 19 May 2017, the Licensing Service received another request from Mr Millington to remove condition 28 and further information was received on 7 July 2017 from Millington’s representative.

Mr Millington and his representative, Mr Malcolm Hope, attended the meeting.  Mr Hope explained to the Panel the importance of dogs socialising from a very young age and that over 90 % of aggression in dogs is due to fear which could be addressed in a puppy for it to learn how to act and react with other dogs to give it confidence and find its place within a pack.  Mr Millington also explained how the dogs are integrated and any aggressive dogs are not accommodated. 

 

Mr Hope informed the Panel that Mr Millington was having to turn away a number of customers due to being unable to accept puppies under 6 months old.  Mr Millington provided a number of references and certificates to the Panel and general feedback from very satisfied customers and it was requested that with his knowledge, experience and practice that condition 28 be removed from his licence.

 

 

 

Delegated decision:

 

After carefully considering the written report, oral statements from the licence holder and his representative, and taking into consideration the written evidence, the Panel agreed unanimously to remove condition 28 from the licence.

A report by the Assistant Director (Localities) was submitted to the Licensing and Safety Panel relating to medical reports that are required by the Licensing Service to be provided by Applicants for hackney carriage/private hire driver licences, which are considered under Section 51 or Section 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. These provisions require that applications of this nature shall not be granted unless the Council are satisfied that the Applicants are ‘fit and proper’ persons to hold such licences. 

 

In addition, on reaching 45, current licensed drivers are required to obtain a medical report and are required to be passed fit every five years and from the age of 65 an annual certification is required.

 

The Council’s current policy is that all drivers must meet the requirements of the Group 2 standard for category C1 vehicles as set out by the DVLA and additional requirements are specified in respect of drivers who are insulin dependent diabetics.

 

At present the Licensing Service require the medical assessment to be carried out by the Applicants/licence holder’s own doctor by completing a Council template medical report.

 

Mr Oakes, Chairman of the Hackney Drivers’ Association Limited, has asked the Council to permit Applicants/licence holders to have their medical assessment undertaken by an alternative provider as the fees charged will be cheaper than that of their own doctor.

                    

It was explained that the Licensing Service has contacted alternative providers and received detailed information on how the assessments are carried out. 

Various issues were raised by the members of the Panel including who the alternative medical provider would be and if the assessment would be as thorough as an Applicants/licence holders own GP.

 

Delegated decision:

 

It was agreed, on a majority decision, in addition to medical assessments being undertaken by the Applicant/licence holders own doctor, to permit them to obtain a medical assessment from a pre-approved alternative provider and to delegate to the Head of Service (Trading Standards and Licensing), following consultation with the Chair of the Licensing and Safety Panel, to approve alternative providers to carry out the driver assessments.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 27 July 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  From 7 July 2017 until 18 August 2017 there have been 33 assessments booked, of which 30 passed, 3 failed and 0 failed to attend.

·         Following the introduction of the pre-requisite requirements being introduced prior to making an application to become a hackney carriage/private hire driver, an appeal had been lodged at Manchester Magistrates’ Court by a previous private hire/hackney carriage driver.  The appeal was dismissed and it was concluded that the Licensing Authority had not refused to renew the driver’s licences and the application to renew had not been made in the correct timeframe.  The applicant was going to further appeal to the Crown Court, however, this appeal was withdrawn by the applicant via email on 4 August 2017.

·         A notice of application prior to judicial review was received by the Licensing Service in relation to the proposed exceptional conditions test considered by the Committee at the last Panel.  The Licensing Service responded to the notice, however, this is now no longer being considered by the client.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

 

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report relating to the licensing and testing of Hackney Carriages. The matter had previously been considered by this Panel in May 2014 which had resolved that the Age Policy would be 10 years from the date of first registration with “exceptional condition” criteria being re-introduced and that existing licence holders be allowed a 3 year transition period. The transition period came to an end on 1 June 2017, but following a request from the Bury Hackney Drivers Association, implementation had been suspended pending consideration by the Licensing and Safety Panel. A request for the policy to be reconsidered and a petition from current drivers was appended to the report.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the implementation of the “exceptional condition” criteria for Hackney Carriages be deferred until a further report is considered by this Panel on 27 July 2017.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 20 April 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre- Application Assessments

·         Immediate Revocation of Private Hire Driver Licence

·         Appeal to the Magistrates Court

·         Staffing - Deputy Licensing Officer

·         Hackney Carriage Age Policy

·         Taxi Liaison Meeting

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

 

The Chair, Councillor Jones, placed on record his thanks to the team of Street Pastors in Bury for the dedicated work they undertake.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That a formal letter from the Panel be sent to the Street Pastor Team thanking them and recognising the important work they do.

                                                                       

(Note- This item which did not appear on the agenda for the meeting was allowed to be considered as a matter of urgency by the Chair to allow for recognition of the work of the Street Pastors at the earliest opportunity)

 

              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCILLOR D JONES

CHAIR

(Note:  The meeting started at 7.00 pm and finished at 8.45 pm)

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 7 March 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application Assessments - these assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team. From February 2017 until March 2017, 31 assessments had been carried out, of which 27 passed, 4 failed and 0 failed to attend.

 

·           Purple Flag External Assessment – the Council will be notified in May 2017 of the decision in respect of the renewal application.

 

·           Hackney Carriage Transitional Arrangements – It was reported that transitional arrangement for the Hackney Carriage fleet come to an end on 1 June 2017

·           Immigration Act 2016 – Implications on the Licensing Act 2003 – Details of the effect of the new provisions commencing on 6 April 2017, were set out in report relating to both personal and premises

licences. It was reported all requirements of the Act had been implemented by the Licensing Service.

 

·        Equality Act 2010 – It was reported that sections 165 and 167 come into effect on 6^th April 2017 in relation to wheelchair accessible vehicles, the requirement to assist wheelchair passengers, the prohibition on charging them extra and the power given to local authorities to make lists of wheelchair accessible vehicles.  It was reported that the Licensing Service is in the process of implementing the requirements of the Act.

 

·         Statistics of the Licensing Service – Statistical information was set out in the report for the 2015/16 financial year in respect of the number of licences, registrations, consents and permits processed.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 19 January 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

·         Pre-application assessments – The Licensing Manager informed the Members that assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the Adult Learning team.  From 28 October until 2 December 2016, 30 assessments have been carried out, of which 27 passed, 3 failed with none failing to attend.  The general feedback from candidates has been largely positive and there have been no complaints or disagreements when a candidate has been unsuccessful.

 

The two suppliers who have been authorised to undertake the pre-requisite driving assessments are Defensive Driver Training and Mitchells.  The feedback from the Defensive Driver Training examiners was that the standard of the drivers who pass is very

good with only a few minor errors, with a 76% pass rate of the candidates that attended. 

 

Mitchells have carried out around 150 Driving Test Assessments for the Greater Manchester Authorities, of which a number have been for Bury Council.  The pass rate of these tests is around 50 to 60% but there is not a figure specifically for the candidates of Bury Council.

 

·         The Licensing Unit Manager explained that in relation to the Immigration Act 2016, Licensing Service staff has recently attended training in relation to the new provisions around preventing illegal working in the private hire vehicle and taxi sector.  With effect from 1 December 2016, the provisions in the 2016 Act prohibit all Licensing Authorities across the UK from issuing to anyone who is disqualified by reason of the immigration status and other immigration safeguards into the existing Licensing regimes across the UK.  The Licensing Service is currently amending their procedures to comply with the requirements of the Act.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 15 November 2016, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

Delegated decision:

 

That the Minutes of the Licensing and Safety Panel meeting held on 12 October 2016, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

 

Pre-application assessments – The Licensing Manager informed the Members that assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team.  26 assessments have been carried out, of which 20 passed, 6 failed with none failing to attend.

 

In relation to suppliers of the pre-requisite driving assessments, the Licensing Manager stated that two companies have been authorised to undertake assessments.

 

On 8 November 2016, the Chair of the Licensing and Safety Panel and the Licensing Service met with representatives from the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trade to discuss various issues and the minutes of this meeting were forwarded to the Trade representatives and all members of the Licensing and Safety Panel.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

 

 

Delegated decision:

 

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it involved the likely disclosure of information relating to individuals who hold Licences granted by the Authority or Applicants for Licences provided by the Authority.

 

The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report advising Members on operational issues within the Licensing Service.

 

The report set out updates in respect of the following issues:

·         Pre-application assessments are continuing to be undertaken by the adult learning team. In December 2016, 12 assessments were booked, of which 10 passed, 2 failed and 0 failed to attend.

·         In relation to a Licensing Hearings Panel meeting on 10 May 2016, following an Application for a review of the premises Licence submitted by the Police in respect of PICS (Now known as the Mint Lounge), 30/32 Market Street, Bury and subsequent representations from 3 other interested parties during the representation period, the Licensing Hearings Panel resolved various modifications to the Premises licence. The Licence Holder subsequently appealed the Panel’s decision to the Magistrates’ Court and it was heard on 26 and 27 September 2016 and the decision was announced on 6 December 2016. The Magistrates’ allowed the appeal and amended the hours of the premises licence.  A condition of last entry of 3.00 am was imposed, although this was a change to the condition imposed by the Licensing and Safety Panel of last admittance of 2.00 am. The remaining conditions were reinstated as per the original licence conditions.

 

It was agreed:

 

That the report be noted.

A report by the Assistant Director (Localities)was submitted to the Licensing and Safety Panel in relation to a request from a Licence Holder to remove condition 28 from his licence.  The Licensing Unit Manager read the report explaining that the Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963 is the relevant legislation which relates to the boarding of dogs and cats, and includes dog crèches.  The Council has specific conditions which relate to all forms of boarding of animals including those at Dog crèches.

 

On 12 October 2010, the Licensing and Safety Panel considered and approved licence conditions relating to dog crèches in order to give more specific control in this growing market.  The report is in relation to condition 28 which states ‘full males, bitches in season and puppies under six months of age must not be boarded with other dogs’.  Bury Council adopted this particular condition in order to ensure the safety of all dogs attending a crèche.

 

Mr Luke Millington, Managing Director of Stay N Play Doggy Day care and the joint Licence Holder of the establishment along with Mr Jason Morgan, attended on behalf of both Licence Holders and explained to the Panel that they have held a licence under the Animal Boarding Establishment Act for a dog crèche since 1 September 2016 and on 12 December 2016; the Licensing Service received a request from Mr Millington to remove condition 28 from the licence. 

 

Mrs Sandra Coombes, Enforcement Officer in Animal Heath, attended the meeting and explained that things now are different from 1963 and people like to have day care for their animals and this does not include boarding over night.  Condition 28 is to ensure the safe provision and welfare of all the animals.

 

Mr Millington attended the meeting with his Mother in Law and addressed the Licensing and Safety Panel and explained that after speaking to various veterinary nurse practitioners and other professionals he believed it was important for dogs to socialise from a very young age. He stated that over 90% of aggression in dogs is due to fear and that could be addressed in a puppy for it to learn how to act and react and greet other dogs to give confidence and to find its place within a pack.

                  

Mr Millington explained that at the licensed premises, the dogs are integrated initially on a one to one basis and if there are any dogs that are aggressive they are put into a separate cage and the owner informed that they cannot be accommodated.  Although it is an industrial unit there are various areas off the unit in which to separate dogs if necessary.   The current licence is for 34 dogs but the Day Care has only 20 at any one time.  There are 8 members of staff in total and always 4 on site, making the ratio 1 member of staff to 5 dogs. 

 

Following various questions by the members of the Licensing and Safety Panel, Mr Millington explained that he has had to turn away a number of customers as he currently is unable to accept puppies under 4 months old.  Although he has only held the licence since 1 September 2016, he started training 8 years ago, making it a profession 4 years ago.  Mr Millington provided a number of references and certificates to the Panel and stated he felt he had the experience, knowledge and practice to warrant removing condition 28 from his licence.

 

Delegated decision:

 

After carefully considering the written report, oral statements from the Licence Holder and taking into consideration written evidence, the Panel agreed on a majority decision to refuse the request to remove condition 28 from the licence. 

 

The Panel noted that Mr Millington had some experience in running the business and had further experience with dogs. It further noted the various certificates demonstrating the training undertaken by the Licence Holders and their staff. However, as the licence had only been granted on 1 September 2016, it was felt by the Panel that further time was needed in order that the Licence Holders could demonstrate that safety standards were being met, that the Licence Holders were able to provide the best care and for the welfare of all the animals, and that there had been no complaints or concerns regarding the establishment.