Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Ingrave Road, Brentwood, Essex CM15 8AY
Contact: Jean Sharp (01277 312655)
Appointment of Chair
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.