Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Wesley Harcourt,

David Morton, Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler and Frances Stainton.

 If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

Adesuwa Omoregie – Legal Advisor introduced the Licensing Sub-Committee Procedure report which recommended that a standard procedure was adopted when dealing with all licensing applications which needed to be determined by the Licensing Committee and its Sub-Committees.

Adesuwa Omoregie drew the Committees’ attention to the three report recommendations and explained that if the procedure was agreed, then there was still flexibility to amend it over time, by delegating authority to the Head of Environmental Health in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee.

Adrian Overton explained that the Licensing Authority had concerns about the proposed time limit of 5 minutes for each party to address the Committee and 3 minutes to sum up (as set out in 4.5 of Appendix 1). In complex applications or when reviews were being considered, he advised the Committee, that the Licensing Authority thought this proposal was too stringent and might result in an increased number of applications which were appealed. As a result, Adrian Overton recommended that the Committee consider increasing the amount of time each party was entitled to address the Committee.

Cllr Colin Aherne referred to the strict time limits imposed on speakers at the Planning, Development and Control Committee and stated that he did not agree with extending the time to address Committee beyond the limits detailed in Appendix 1 of the report. Adesuwa Omoregie suggested that a degree of flexibility could be introduced in complex applications or when reviews were being considered and that a limited extension of time might be granted at the discretion of the Chair of the meeting. The Licensing Committee agreed the recommendation proposed by the Legal Advisor.

In relation to Representations (as set out in 2.0 to 2.3 of Appendix 1), Adrian Overton expressed concern about point 2.2 and the need to ensure the Council did not accept anonymous representations or requests for reviews. He pointed to past instances, where residents had stated they were the Chair of a Residents Association but there was no provenance to prove or disprove this assertion. On this basis he asked the point 2.2 of Appendix 1 be amended by an extra sentence added after the licensing objectives stating –

Representations made by unregistered resident associations should be accompanied by the names, addresses and signatures of all residents who have given their consent to the representation being submitted on their behalf.

Mr Overton also suggested that section 7.2 of the hearing procedure should be amended to add ‘unless all parties involved in the hearing have given their consent then the decision can be made without the need for a hearing’.

As such the whole of 7.2 should read as follows -

7.2 In the event that the request for the adjournment of the decision is made less than 72 hours before the scheduled date for the hearing the decision on the request for the adjournment will be made at the hearing, unless all parties involved have given their consent then the decision can be made without the need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.