Minutes:
8.1 Councillor Harvey raised with the Committee the point that an awkward situation had been caused when a ward councillor had sent an additional representation directly to the Members of the Sub-Committee meeting which she had chaired. The applicant’s legal representative had been informed that Members were fully aware that the councillor had not followed the correct procedure of forwarding the concerns via the Licensing Team and that they were therefore not taking his additional submission into account. This statement had been accepted by the Applicant’s legal representative.
8.2 Members of the Licensing Committee were also concerned that there appeared to be other instances where councillors were not fully aware of the differences between the licensing and planning regimes. For planning committee meetings, representations are typically submitted via the planning officer dealing with the application but Members may be directly lobbied in advance of any Committee hearing. That is considered to be a legitimate part of the process provided that the Members disclose the details of all communications that have been received in advance of the Committee meeting and do not pre-determine the application. For licensing sub-committee meetings, it is not possible for someone to submit any evidence if that person has not made a representation within the statutory time limit (28 days following the date on which the application is made). Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee must not be lobbied in advance of the meeting, either orally or in writing and should refuse to accept or read any representations or evidence submitted directly to them in advance of a hearing. Only the applicant and parties who have made relevant representations can submit evidence to the Licensing Sub-Committee and that must be done via the Licensing Team. It was agreed by the Members of the Licensing Committee that this distinction between the two regimes would be set out in the Council’s internal publication to Members, the Weekly Information Bulletin.
8.3 Councillor Gassanly wished to express his concerns at the treatment of the Chairman of Islington Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee which had considered the Fabric Review application. He had spoken to her and she was under Police protection having received death and rape threats following the decision which had been taken. He was greatly concerned by some of the unacceptable challenges which some elected representatives were being asked to face, including in this instance. This could potentially be replicated in the event of high profile applications at Westminster’s Sub-Committee meetings. He also believed that it was disappointing that politicians should publicly question the decisions of councils’ licensing authorities. Members stated that they had experienced verbal abuse in relation to decisions they had made at licensing and planning meetings. The Chairman made the point that following an incident which had been brought to her attention, she had agreed a protocol with the Licensing Team that applicants or objectors do not leave licensing sub-committee meetings at the same time as the Members.
8.4 RESOLVED: That the distinction between the licensing and planning regimes and how Members should respond to them be set out in the Weekly Information Bulletin.