Contact your Parish Council
Issue - meetings
Application for a Premises Licence to be granted under the Licensing Act 2003 for the W House, Warehouse, Rear of 11-15 Week Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1QW
- 1 Appendix - Application, item 4 PDF 191 KB
- 2 Appendix - Plans, item 4 PDF 3 MB
- 3 Appendix - Police Reps, item 4 PDF 93 KB
- 3a Police Reps - evidence & conditions, item 4 PDF 37 KB View as HTML (4/5) 13 KB
- 4 Appendix - withdrawn rep, item 4 PDF 110 KB
- 5 Appendix - signed objection to w house letter, item 4 PDF 378 KB
- 6 Appendix - Plan of Area, item 4 PDF 690 KB
- 7 Appendix - HUMAN RIGHTS, item 4 PDF 30 KB View as HTML (4/9) 10 KB
- 8 Appendix - Order of Procedure of New and Variation Hearings, item 4 PDF 125 KB View as HTML (4/10) 36 KB
The meeting commenced at 10.30 a.m.
The Chairman requested that all those participating in the hearing identified themselves as follows:-
Councillor Patrik Garten – Chairman
Councillor Bob Hinder – Committee Member
Councillor Mrs Denise Joy – Committee Member
Mr Stephen Thomas – Stephen Thomas Law, Spokesperson for the applicant
Mr Steven Moore – MD of the W House Ltd, applicant
Mr John Barnes – proposed General Manager/DPS of the W House
Also in attendance:
Representative from the Kent Messenger
Deputy General Manager from the W House Ltd
Jayne Bolas, Legal Officer
Caroline Matthews, Democratic Services Officer
The Legal Officer advised the Sub-Committee and those present that an email had been received at 7.45 a.m. from the son of the objector, Mr T Modell requesting an adjournment as he had spent the night in A & E in Colchester and did not know when he would be able to leave. He requested that if possible the meeting be rescheduled. Mrs Bolas also advised that until this communication, there had been no previous notice of intention from Mr Modell on whether he was attending or not or wishes to call or produce evidence in support of his objection.
Members of the Sub-Committee were reminded that Regulation 20 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations states that if a party has failed to attend the hearing then the authority may consider it to be necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing to a specific date or hold the hearing in the party’s absence. If the Authority decided to hold the hearing in the absence of that party, the authority shall consider at the hearing the application, representations or notice made by that party.
Mr Thomas, on behalf of the applicant, advised the Sub-Committee that in his opinion it was not necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing. If Members were minded to proceed they would consider the representation made by Mr Modell in any event. The submission from the objector sets out his concerns in connection with other premises underage issues and fears that the same issue will arise. If he were here he could only reiterate that objection as it stands. The arguments can be tested before a decision is made. The representations are based on fear and fear of potential issues is not a ground for refusal to grant.
The Sub-Committee advised that they would adjourn to consider whether to continue with the proceedings.
Meeting adjourned at 10.10 a.m. and reconvened at 10.15 a.m.
The Legal Advisor stated that Members of the Sub-Committee had considered that there was sufficient evidence to enable the hearing to continue.
The one objector had not provided any confirmation as to whether he was attending or sending a representative and had not provided any evidence to substantiate his allegations so the Sub-Committee were content to consider his written representation as he would not be prejudiced as no new material could be produced.
The Chairman asked all parties to confirm that they were aware ... view the full minutes text for item 4