To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received on behalf of Mr Abdullah, objector.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Chief Executive.

The Chair declared that whilst he did not have an interest in the application, he was a Ward Member. Councillor Haque confirmed he did not know the premises and had not discussed the matter with anyone.

To note the rules of procedure which are attached for information.

Mr Hussain drew attention to the procedure that would be followed.

Noted.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee meetings held on 22^nd, 24^th and 31^st July 2008.

The minutes of the meetings held on 22^nd, 24^th and 31^st July were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

Ms Randall, Licensing Officer, introduced the report and outlined the application to review the licence and the attendant appendices. The original Premises Licence had subsequently been amended by variation and a copy of the current Premises Licence was included with the report.

Mr Hussain reported that he was aware that further documentation had been submitted by the licence holder and that there was a representation to this.

Mr Butt, legal representative for Mr Christou, stated that he objected to the submission of the material so late in the day. The information had only been received by the Authority late on Friday; the Acoustic report was dated 30^th September and the Security report was dated July. The application for review had been submitted several months ago and this information could have been submitted much earlier than it was. The Hearing Regulations stated that subsequent information should be confined to the detail of the reports and this information was clearly new material.

Whilst the Regulations allowed information to be submitted in advance of a meeting and did not define this beyond that statement, the information being submitted appears to have been sent deliberately late to the Licensing Authority and therefore those present are unable to comment on their content.

Mr Sutherland, legal representative for the licence holder, stated that the submission of further material was covered by the Regulations. The Committee may and should take documentary evidence which is supplied prior to a meeting into account. The information had been supplied to the review applicant via the email address in the report and a hard copy had been served at the home address but the review applicant had declined to receive it. 

If further time to consider the matter was being requested, this was a matter between Mr Butt and the Sub Committee, though Mr Sutherland believed the Hearing Regulations were clear on this point. He also stated that the information did fall within the purview of the report by addressing some of the issues of concern and was therefore highly relevant and should be considered by the Sub Committee this evening.

The Chair asked if further time to consider the information was required. Neither side directly responded and Mr Hussain advised that the practical interpretation of the situation was that it was clear that the information had been presented more than 24 hours before the meeting and could therefore be accepted.

At the request of the Chair, Mr Butt presented the case for the review applicants, Mr & Mrs Christou who lived next door to and shared a party wall with, the premise. They had lived and worked there for many years.

Music had been sufficiently loud as to constitute a breach of both the Licensing Objectives and the licence condition that noise should be inaudible within the residential premise. This had continued unabated even since the application for the review had been submitted.

The premise had frequently operated in breach of the hours of their planning permission and had the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1