Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor R Morgan, Councillor K Angold-Stephens was kind enough to substitute for him.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs R Gadsby declared a personal interest in Item 9 of the agenda – New Premises Licence 785 Chigwell Road, Woodford Green IG8 8AU. The Councillor said that the interest was also prejudicial as she had been a member of the Sub-Committee in September which had heard the Review of these same premises. Therefore she would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item and take no part in the decision taken.

The Procedure for the Conduct of Business was noted.

Exclusion: To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Confidential Items Commencement: Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:

(1)        All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.

(2)        At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.

(3)        Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision.

Background Papers:  Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)        disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item.

RESOLVED:

That, in accordance with Section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the item of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (a) of the Act indicated and the exemption is considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

Agenda Item No                                Subject                       Exempt Information

Paragraph Number

6                                                        Hackney Carriage                   1

Driver’s Licence –

Mr Brignell

7                                                    Hackney Carriage                   1

Driver’s Licence –

Mr Burns

(Director of Corporate Support Services) To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee considered a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence for a Mr Brignell. The three Councillors who presided over this item were Councillors D Wixley, K Chana and Mrs R Gadsby. Members noted that officers did not have delegated powers to uphold or revoke the licence and, as a result, the application had to be considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Chairman welcomed the licence holder and introduced the members and officers present. The Assistant Solicitor informed the Sub-Committee of the circumstances under which the licence could not be determined under delegated authority.

The licence holder made a short statement to the Sub-Committee in support of his licence, before answering a number of questions from members of the Sub-Committee. The licence holder then made a short closing statement to the Sub-Committee before the Chairman requested that the applicant leave the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee debated the licence in private. The Chairman invited the licence holder back into the Chamber and informed him of the Sub-Committee decision.

RESOLVED:

That the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence for Mr Brignell be upheld.

(Director of Corporate Support Services) To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee considered a Hackney carriage Driver’s Licence for a Mr R Burns. The three Councillors who presided over this item were Councillors D Wixley, K Chana and Mrs R Gadsby. Members noted that officers did not have delegated powers to uphold or revoke the licence and, as a result, the application had to be considered by the Sub-Committee.

The Chairman welcomed the licence holder and introduced the members and officers present. The Assistant Solicitor informed the Sub-Committee of the circumstances under which the licence could not be determined under delegated authority.

The licence holder made a short statement to the Sub-Committee in support of his licence, before answering a number of questions from members of the Sub-Committee. The licence holder then made a short closing statement to the Sub-Committee before the Chairman requested that the applicant leave the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee debated the licence in private. The Chairman invited the licence holder back into the Chamber and informed him of the Sub-Committee decision.

RESOLVED:

That the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence for Mr Burns be revoked as he did not meet the Council’s Licensing Criteria in respect of his record from the Criminal Records Bureau having revealed relevant driving offences.

To invite the public and press back into the meeting for the remaining items of business.

RESOLVED:

That the public and press be invited back into the meeting for the remaining items of business.

(Director of Corporate Support Services) To consider the attached report.

The members who presided over this application were Councillors D Wixley, K Angold-Stephens and K Chana. The Chairman welcomed the participants and introduced the members and officers present, and then requested that the participants introduce themselves to the Sub-Committee.

In attendance on behalf of the application were Mr H Akhtar, representing the applicant, and Mr R Anwar, the applicant for the Metro Superstore Ltd, 785 Chigwell Road, Woodford Green IG8 8AU

Representing Essex Police were Mr S Fisher, Licensing Officer, Epping Police Station and Police Constable Mead, local beat patrol officer for the area concerned.

In attendance on behalf of objectors was Mr A Newman, a local resident.

(a)        The Application before the Sub-Committee

The Assistant Solicitor, Ms R Feirreira, informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been received on 14 September 2010 for a New Premises Licence for the Metro Store, 785 Chigwell Road, Woodford Green IG8 8AU. The District Council had received representations from nine interested parties and two authorities.

(b)       Presentation of the Applicant’s Case

Mr H Akhtar outlined the applicant’s case. The application had no connection with any earlier applications for this particular store. There was no new evidence from the police regarding the store, although the police had submitted a letter dated 21 September 2010 to the District Council, regarding the store, the letter was too general and non specific to be taken as evidence. Mr H Akhtar pointed out that only part of a petition, signed by local residents supporting the application appeared on the meeting’s agenda. Officers advised that normally only one page of a petition was included on the agenda. There were 114 signatures on the petition, 57 were valid and within close proximity to the shop and 57 were not within the vicinity. The Licensing Act did not stipulate the vicinity of consultees. In the agenda, there was a copy of a letter from Mr H Akhtar to Essex Police regarding the policing situation at the store. The current number of complaints could not be stated.

(c)        Questions for the Applicant from the Sub-Committee

Councillor K Angold-Stephens stated that although there was not an exact number of complaints associated with the store, there were 28 logged incidents by the police. Mr H Akhtar accepted this figure. However it was important to access the nature of the complaints. The current manager of the store, Mr R Anwar, had been running the store since August 2010, the incidents recorded took place before this date. Since Mr R Anwar had been running the store, Mr H Akhtar said there had been no complaints made. The applicant was asked if the business was family run. Mr H Akhtar replied that it wasn’t. The members asked if Mr R Anwar knew the licensing objectives of the authority. Mr R Anwar knew of checking identification for potential under age purchases. However there was concern that the applicant did not have sufficient knowledge of the licensing objectives.

(d)       Questions for the Applicant from the Objector

Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.