Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Rob Broom, John Duncan, Bret Facey, Liz Harrington, Chris Howells, Graham Lawrence CC, Lin Martin-Haugh, Andy McGuinness and Claire Parris.

There were no declarations of interest.

To note the procedure for the Hearing of Licensing Applications.

All parties noted the procedure for the meeting which had been circulated with the agenda.

To determine an application for a review of the premises licence for Lounge 72, 70 High Street, Stevenage, SG1 3EA made by Hertfordshire Constabulary.

[Note:  As part of its case for requesting a review, Hertfordshire Constabulary wishes to show video footage related to incidents described in the application.  These contain images of members of the public which constitute personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018.

The Committee is invited to consider whether the public should be excluded from parts of the hearing during which video images containing personal data are shown.

In deciding whether to exclude the public from all or part of a hearing the Committee should consider whether the public interest in exclusion outweighs the public interest in the hearing, or that part of the hearing, taking place in public.]

The Committee considered an application for a review of the premises licence for Lounge 72, 70 High Street, Stevenage made by Police Sergeant Christopher Adshead on behalf of Hertfordshire Constabulary.  The application was supported by Hertfordshire Public Health and by Stevenage Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department.  Representations were made by two interested parties, one supportive of the application and one supportive of the Licence Holder.

At this juncture, The Committee heard that, Mr Dadds, a solicitor acting for the Licence Holder had contacted the Council earlier in the day to request that the hearing be adjourned.  Mr Dadds joined the meeting remotely by Zoom link with the Licence Holder who was audible, although not visible.

The Committee retired to consider the application for adjournment and decided to reject it.  The basis for the adjournment application is summarised below, along with the Committee’s reasons for rejecting it.

Reasons for refusal of the adjournment application:

The Committee considered carefully the application for an adjournment made on behalf of the Licence Holder and had taken account of the points made by all parties.

There were two grounds for the adjournment application:

(a)  That the Licence Holder had only instructed a lawyer to act on her behalf the previous day.  Her lawyer needed more time to look at the papers and to represent his client properly; and

(b)  That the Police had not disclosed information to which the Licence Holder was entitled in order to respond to the case made by the Police.

In respect of ground (a) the Committee was mindful of the points made on behalf of the Licence Holder.  However, it was also mindful of the public interest in prompt determination of review applications.  It was also the case that adjournment and reconvening the meeting would involve a significant additional call on public resources.  The Licence Holder had been made aware of the review since mid-November and had ample opportunity to instruct a lawyer at an earlier stage.  On balance the Committee rejected this as a basis for adjourning the hearing.

In respect of ground (b). It was for the Police as the responsible authority requesting the review to decide what evidence to put forward. It was for Members to evaluate all the evidence and representations made. If the Committee decided that it did not have adequate information to decide it could request further information during the hearing, adjourning if necessary.

The application for an adjournment was refused.

Upon being advised of the Committee’s decision, Mr Dadds stated that he and his client would withdraw from the hearing on the basis that he would be unable properly to represent her.  The Zoom link was then terminated and the Licence Holder and her Solicitor took no further part in the review hearing.

At this juncture, the Committee, along with representatives of the responsible authorities present and support staff, withdrew to view the video footage put in evidence by the Police.  Part of the footage was filmed at the “Chocolate Brunch” on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider any Part I business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

None.

To consider the following motions –

1.          That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in Paragraphs 1 - 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006

2.          The Members consider the reasons for the following reports being in Part II and determine whether or not maintaining the exemption from disclosure of the information contained therein outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Not required.

To consider any Part II Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

None.