Agenda and draft minutes

Public Speaking: To register your intention to speak at a Council, Cabinet or Committee meeting, please contact Democratic Services on committee@uttlesford.gov.uk or 01799 510410, 510548, 510369 or 510460. Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings do not generally permit public speaking. Please refer to a specific meeting's pdf agenda pack for further information and registration deadlines.

Live Broadcast: For Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings the video player will be available on this page under the Media banner a few minutes before the meeting is due to begin. Please note that Panel, Board, Forum and Working Group meetings are not generally broadcast on the website. We believe that live streaming video of our formal decision making meetings, and publishing the recordings to be watched back later, is good for democracy – and you can find these videos on our website. This video technology sits alongside the longstanding practice of providing seats in the public gallery for members of the public and journalists to turn up and watch our in-person meetings live. Please understand that whilst we will continue to make every reasonable effort to ensure that our key public meetings at which important decisions are live streamed and recorded, any failure in that technology does not in any way invalidate the legitimacy of that meeting or of the decisions taken at it. Even in the event of such occasional technical failures, the public gallery will still have been open, as required by law, and the minutes of the meetings will still be made available in due course.

Zoom and YouTube have their own privacy and data security policies, which can be accessed at www.zoom.us and www.youtube.com.

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 4ER. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 01799 510434  Email: committee@uttlesford.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Minutes:

Mr Dadds requested that the meeting be adjourned to allow him to consider the Council’s scheme of delegation in light of the omission of 226 letters (221 of which were identical) of representation. He said it was members, not officers, who had delegated authority to dismiss public representations.

 

The Council’s Solicitor said these representations had been considered and highlighted their inclusion in the report.

 

The Chair granted the request and adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10.40am

 

The meeting was reconvened at 10.55am

 

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting, explained procedure and introduced the Panel.

 

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as the Queen Victoria was situated in his ward.

 

The Council’s Solicitor said these representations had been considered and highlighted their inclusion in the report.

 

The Chair granted the request and adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10.40am

 

The meeting was reconvened at 10.55am

 

The Chair welcomed all to the meeting, explained procedure and introduced the Panel.

 

The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as the Queen Victoria was situated in his ward.

 

2.

Application for a Premises Licence Queen Victoria, Great Dunmow pdf icon PDF 87 KB

To consider the application for a Premises Licence - Queen Victoria, Great Dunmow

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Dadds, as the applicant’s Solicitor, confirmed he would be speaking on behalf of his client.

 

Mr Dadds said the identical letters of representation, which had been drafted by his office, should be considered as material evidence as they demonstrated that over two hundred local people supported the Queen Victoria in its pursuit of a licence. He claimed that officers should have responded in writing to these representations. He said a practical way forward would be to allow him to present the letters as evidence and for the Panel to decide how much weight would be given to the representations during their deliberation.

 

The Council’s Solicitor referenced the Constitution and Regulation 19 of the Licensing Act; she said it would be for Members to determine how much weight was given to the letters, and that the Council had engaged with the public and fulfilled its statutory duty by advertising this licensing application in a local newspaper and on the council’s website. However, she said she had no objections to Mr Dadds presenting these letters as evidence during the panel hearing.

 

Mr Dadds said a procedure needed to be put in place when dealing with representations of the public; each individual should have been written to with an explanation of why their representations had been considered irrelevant.

 

The Solicitor said the letters had been considered and were referenced in the report. It would be for Members to decide how much weight was given to these representations during their deliberations.

 

The Chair confirmed that Panel members were aware of the letters. He asked the Licensing Team Leader to present her report to the Panel.

 

The report set out details of the Queen Victoria application for a new premises licence. The application had been referred to Committee as representations had been received from Essex Police regarding the prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing objective, as there were concerns that the applicant represented a continuation of the previous management who had been charged with illegal working practices on a number of occasions. The Council’s Licensing Policy was read out for Members’ consideration.

 

The Chair asked the representatives of Essex Police to set out their case.

 

Mr Burke presented the report outlining the reasons why Essex Police were objecting to the application on the grounds of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder licensing objective. He said the premises were raided numerous times since 2013 and illegal workers had been found on each occasion. Whilst these illegal working practices were undertaken by previous management, the applicant had been a shareholder in Aldbrook LTD, the owner and operator of the Queen Victoria, since the company’s inception in 2011. He said the company’s history demonstrated a trend in illegal working practices and, as the applicant represented a continuation of management, there was real concern that the Prevention of Crime and Disorder objective would be undermined if the licence was granted.

 

Councillor Loughlin asked whether the Queen Victoria had a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.