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 the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the request further and then the meeting reconvened in public.
2. The Chairman advised that the sub-committee, having heard the comments of all parties, had AGREED to the request for an adjournment, as progress had started to be made. Members of the sub-committee had other responsibilities to perform, and were of the opinion that the item should be completed in a single hearing. An adjournment was therefore agreed until 1.30pm, when the hearing would commence promptly and with no further adjournment for lunch. He emphasised the hope that matters could be expedited this afternoon; the paperwork had been read by all and he would urge all parties to make their verbal representations concisely. He also requested that a timetable be agreed to facilitate the conclusion of the hearing in an expeditious and sensible manner.