Agenda and minutes
Wednesday, 8th September, 2010 10.00 am
Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
1. The Chairman welcomed all those present to the meeting.
2. The Chairman apologised for the delayed start time of 11.00am, but thanked the Trading Standards and Willow representatives for working together and coming to certain agreements, particularly in respect of surrendering of the former licence.
3. A request had been made by the legal representatives of Trading Standards and Willow to each make an address, which would be heard before proceeding with the meeting.
Members of the Sub-Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda. Please refer to the guidance note attached to the agenda.
NOTED there were no declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
1. Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, confirmed the legal representatives of both Trading Standards and Willow wished to address the sub-committee.
2. The statement of Ms Sarah Naylor, Counsel, Trading Standards, including the following points:
a. The application for review was multi-faceted, with a number of different aspects flagged up.
b. It was usual and proper that discussions had taken place before this meeting between Trading Standards and representatives of the licence holders to see if a way forward could be made as much as possible. Parties were grateful for the time allowed, but she wished to make a submission on behalf of Trading Standards that it would be proportionate and of real value for a further amount of time to be given for those discussions to continue.
c. Further discussions leading to a narrowing of the issues would mean that less time would be needed for the hearing.
d. It was proposed that the sub-committee sit again at 1.30pm for the reasons outlined.
3. The statement of Ms Clare Eames, Poppleston Allen, solicitor representing the licence holders, including the following points:
a. Further discussions had taken place in the last day or so.
b. Her clients had retained the services of an acoustic expert to assist with issues raised. It had not been possible for a meeting involving the licence holders, Council officers and the acoustic expert to take place until last Friday 3 September due to holidays, but that meeting had resulted in some very positive outcomes and solutions.
c. Her clients would like to be in a position to have a more polished solution to put to the sub-committee and to be allowed time for that.
4. Councillor Levy highlighted that Interested Parties were in attendance to make representations and had the right to speak at any hearing, and invited them to comment.
5. The statement of Mr Tim Riley, Ashwood Lodge Management Company, on behalf of the Interested Parties, including the following points:
a. There was clearly a concern about acoustics at Willow, but there were many other major concerns including public order, crime and nuisance.
b. Despite the recommendations of the acoustics expert, an over-riding factor was the conduct of the licence holders.
c. Interested Parties had attended in their own time and in line with the notification of the Council. Their interests should be taken into account and any meeting delay be kept as short as possible.
6. In response to the Chairman’s queries, Ms Naylor advised that discussions were wide ranging and covered the majority of issues of concern, not just acoustics. This view was endorsed by Ms Eames.
1. In accordance with the principles of Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.
The Panel retired, with ... view the full minutes text for item 260.
Applications to review two Premises Licences.
RECEIVED the report of the Principal Licensing Officer, and the bundle of evidence dated 31 August 2010 from Poppleston Allen, and the letter dated 7 September 2010 from 24Acoustics.
1. The Chairman offered a formal welcome to the hearing, and re-iterated his request to all parties to keep submissions as concise as possible, bearing in mind the written evidence already received.
2. Prior to formal introduction of the applications, the advice of the Principal Licensing Officer that the legal representative for the licence holders wished to make a submission to the sub-committee.
3. The submission of Ms Clare Eames, Poppleston Allen, solicitor on behalf of the licence holders, including the following points:
a. A situation had arisen which she had never found herself in previously in a 13 year professional career and she wished to explain what had happened this morning to the sub-committee.
b. When she arrived, negotiations had already begun, and she met with officers and Counsel for Trading Standards and had open discussions. The general tenor of these was that concerns would be able to be dealt with by way of conditions to the licence, without any reduction to hours or removal of licensable activities from the licence. Trading Standards’ representatives had then been left to discuss matters.
c. A Trading Standards officer had subsequently given the impression that their position would be that their representation would not be to ask for a reduction of hours or removal of live music from the licence.
d. As a result, she had come before the panel this morning to request an adjournment so that conditions could be drawn up and discussed.
e. After an hour, a Trading Standards officer had approached with a revised set of conditions, and a change to the Council position, following further discussions with her superior, that they would not now negotiate on hours. Trading Standards had gone back on their officer’s previous position.
f. She also had concerns regarding a highly prejudicial letter sent out in relation to the review to members of the community indicating that her clients had breached their licensing conditions. The letter implied guilt and may have influenced the representations made by residents.
g. In this situation she considered that the whole review application had been tainted, and it was questionable whether her clients could have a fair hearing.
h. Her clients felt shocked, disappointed and awkward.
i. The evidence did not support a reduction of hours, and she would not have requested the adjournment this morning if she had not been under the impression from Trading Standards that such a representation could be withdrawn.
j. As her clients had been very prejudiced in the correspondence and today, she would suggest three options (i) that this review be dismissed and the process started again; (ii) the sub-committee determine the review to agree that no decision is necessary and allow a review to be re-started; (iii) an adjournment of the case, with consideration that the clients had ... view the full minutes text for item 261.