Agenda and minutes

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

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the agreed procedure for the conduct of business, and the Terms of Reference.

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 items of business set out below as they 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 Driver’s                              1

Licence – Mr. Sharp

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

The Sub-Committee considered an application by Mr Sharp for a Taxi licence. The three councillors that presided over this item were Councillors Mrs McEwen, Mrs Sartin and Mrs Smith.

Members noted that officers did not have delegated powers to grant this application and, as a result, the application had to be considered by the Sub-Committee. The Chairman welcomed the applicant and introduced the members and officers present. The Legal Officer informed the Sub-Committee of the circumstances under which the licence could not be issued under delegated authority.

The applicant made a short statement to the Sub-Committee in support of their application, before answering a number of questions from members of the Sub-Committee. On behalf of Sadler’s Taxis, Mr Smith made representations as to Mr Sharp’s good character.

The Chairman requested that the applicant leave the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee debated his application in private. The Chairman invited the applicant back into the Chamber and informed him of the Sub-Committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

            That the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence for Mr Sharp be granted.

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 Mrs McEwen, Mrs Sartin and Mrs Smith.

The Chairman welcomed the participants and introduced the members and officers present and the requested that the participants introduce themselves to the Sub-Committee.

In attendance on behalf of the application was David Dadds, from Dadds Solicitors, the applicant, Mr Guner Islek, his cousin and a representative from NARTS, the Turkish Traders Association.

(a)        The application before the Sub-Committee

The Assistant Director (Legal), Alison Mitchell, informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been received on 17 February 2011 for a Premises Licence for the Broadway Express, 74 The Broadway Loughton, Essex, IG10 3ST. The District Council had received one representation from Loughton Town Council on behalf of Katie Nicholson, a Town Councillor, who lives in the vicinity of the premises. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the application was made in the prescribed form and had been advertised and the relevant notifications given.

(b)       Presentation of the Applicant’s Case

Mr Dadds outlined the applicant’s case. He highlighted that only one representation had been made by against this application and, though they were a resident of the local area, they lived a considerable distance away from the premises being discussed. He referred the Sub-Committee to a previously circulated map and demonstrated that the residence of the objector, Ms Nicholson, was so far away from the site that it was off the map. Being this far away, Mr Dadds questioned the extent to which Ms Nicholson would be affected by this application, and therefore ventured that this was not a relevant objection and should be discounted.

(i)         Consideration of the Application by the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee retired to private session in order to consider the validity of the objection.

They noted that Loughton Town Council could not object as a Council and that the objector did not live in the vicinity and therefore their objection could not be considered valid.

Given this, the application would now revert back for Officer delegation.

            RESOLVED:

That the representations made by Loughton Town Council on behalf of Ms Katie Nicholson be disregarded and the application dealt with as normal under delegated responsibility.

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

The members who presided over this application were Councillors Knapman, Mrs McEwen and Mrs Smith.

The Chairman welcomed the participants and introduced the members and officers present and the requested that the participants introduce themselves to the Sub-Committee.

In attendance on behalf of the application were the applicant, Deborah Flack, her solicitor, Philip Bonavero, and two associates Mr Adair and Mr Sabine.

Representing Essex Police were Mr S Fisher, Licensing Officer.

In attendance on behalf of the objectors was Councillor Mrs R Brookes, who represented Loughton Town Council, and two local residents who submitted a late petition.

Members retired to private session in order to determine whether the two local residents should be permitted to make oral representations regarding their petition relating to this application. It was agreed that as their petition had been submitted to Loughton Town Council who had not passed it to District Council Officers within the specified time period, the residents could not be allowed to give oral representations relating to this matter.

(a)        The application before the Sub-Committee

The Assistant Director (Legal), Alison Mitchell, informed the Sub-Committee that an application had been received for Grant of a Sex Establishment Licence for Shop 72 Borders Lane, Loughton, Essex, IG10 3 QX. The District Council had received several representations from Essex Police, District Councillors, Loughton Town Council, community groups, church groups, schools and residents.

(b)       Presentation of the Applicant’s Case

Mr Bonavero outlined the applicant’s case. He addressed the letters of objection that had been circulated previously. These followed a similar pattern and were, Mr Bonavero argued, based on moral grounds which could not be considered relevant. He continued that some community organisations, such as the Kidz Group, had not specified their location which detracted further from the significance of their objections. It was recognised that objections from religious establishments were legitimate,  but Mr Bonavero questioned whether this site was in the vicinity of places of worship. Several maps were examined by Members which highlighted the places of worship and educational institutions in the nearby area. Mr Bonavero judged the majority of these highlighted locations as not being adjacent to the application site, with the noted exception of Loughton Synagogue. Representations had been received from the synagogue, though this objected to any opening of the shop on Sundays which would coincide with Sunday School. This was being addressed as the applicant was intending to remain closed on Sundays.

Mr Bonavero argued that the schools in the vicinity were not adjacent to the application site, nor was it on any commonly used access route to schools. Parallels were drawn between the location of this application, and Michelle Fashions, an existing shop in Buckhurst Hill of a similar nature. Addressing the residents’ representations relating to the family nature of this parade of shops, a map was presented to the Sub-Committee outlining the present shops included a bookmakers, off-licence and tattoo parlour; it was argued that a sex shop would be entirely appropriate in such company. Mr Bonavero  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.