Members RESOLVED that Cllr Miss Sanders should chair the meeting.

Legal Adviser to the sub-committee, Matt Lewin, advised all present that there had been a suggestion from the Applicant that Cllr Chilvers should excuse herself from being a member of the sub-committee to avoid any perception of bias and she had done so.  Cllr Kerslake replaced her as a member of the sub-committee.

Members are respectfully reminded that, in determining the matters listed below, they are exercising an administrative function with the civil burden of proof, i.e. ‘on the balance of probabilities’.  The matter will be determined on the facts before the Sub-Committee and the rules of natural justice will apply.

Members were respectfully reminded that, in determining the matters listed below, they were exercising an administrative function with the civil burden of proof, i.e. ‘on the balance of probabilities’.  The matter would be determined on the facts before the Sub-Committee and the rules of natural justice would apply.

An application had been received for a new premises licence for the provision of regulated entertainment, supply of alcohol and late-night refreshment in respect of 93 High St, Brentwood CM14 4RR. There had been 3 representations received from the Responsible Authorities and 220 relevant representations received from other persons, including a ward councillor.Members were requested to determine the application having regard to the operating schedule, the representations received, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the four Licensing objectives.

The sub-committee  was  asked  by  counsel  for  Essex  Police  (Ms  Parekh)  to  refuse  to  take  into  account material  which  had  been  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  Applicant  at  just  after  5pm  the  night before the hearing and had decided to refuse to take into account that material.

The sub-committee was alsoasked by counsel for the Applicant (Mr Dadds) to adjourn the hearing on the basis  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  proceed.     Members decided  to  refuse  the  request  for  an adjournment and to proceed with the hearing.

The sub-committee’s reasonsfor both decisions were as follows:

The decision to refuse to take into account the Applicant’s material

Solicitors  for  the  Applicant  had sent  four  emails  to  the  Council  and  responsible  authorities beginning  at  just  after  5pm  the  night  before  the  hearing,  attaching  a  112-page  bundle. Additionally,  an  email  sent  by  the  Applicant’s  solicitors  at  1.16pm  had  included  a  link  to  a YouTube  video.    Members did  not  receive  any  of  that  material  until  shortly  before  the  hearing began when hard copies were provided by the Applicant’s solicitors.   While the Responsible Authorities had been sent the material directly, none of the residents in attendance to support their own relevant representations had seen the material.

Essex  Police  objected  to  the  admission  of  this  material  on  the  basis  that  it  had  not  been provided before the hearing, as it was not received until after close of business.   They also said that they had not had time to properly consider the material in the time available.   Ms Laura Smith, a resident, also objected on the basis that it was unfair to admit material which she had not seen.

Mr  Dadds  submitted  that  no  party  would  be  prejudiced  by  the  admission  of  this  written material.   He  said  that  it  had  been  submitted  to  assist  the sub-committee  but  that  he  could  deal  with  the matters  set  out  in  that  material  orally  and  by  calling  his  witnesses.   He  explained  that  the material had been submitted in response to late evidence received from Essex Police on 31October 2019.

Legal Adviser to the sub-committee, Matt Lewin, advised  Members  of  Regulation  18  of  the  Licensing  Act  2003  (Hearings) Regulations 2005, which provided:

“In considering any representations or notice made by a party the authority may take into account documentary or other information produced by a party in support of their application, representations or notice (as applicable) either before the hearing or, with the consent of all the other parties, at the hearing.”

Members decided that – technically  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.