Issue - meetings

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.

NOTED

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