Report from the Licensing Officer attached.
Right of attendance, assistance and representation
Subject to regulations 14(2) - concerning exclusion of the public from all or part of a hearing where the Licensing Authority considers doing so to be in the greater public interest, and regulation 25 - concerning the exclusion of any person attending the hearing who is behaving in a disruptive manner:
· A party may attend the hearing and may be assisted or represented by any person, whether or not that person is legally qualified.
At the hearing a party shall be entitled to –
a) in response to a point upon which the authority has given notice to a party that it will want clarification under regulation 7(1)(d), give further information in support of their application, representation or notice (as applicable,
b) if given permission by the authority, question any other party; and
c) address the authority.
Failure of parties to attend hearing
(1) If a party has informed the Authority that he does not intend to attend or be represented at a hearing, the hearing may proceed in his absence.
(2) If a party who has not so indicated fails to attend or be represented at a hearing the authority may –
(a) where it considers it to be necessary in the public interest, adjourn the hearing to a specified date, or
(b) hold the hearing in the party’s absence.
(3) Where the Authority holds the hearing in the absence of the party, the Authority shall consider at the hearing the application, representations or notice made by that party.
(4) Where the Authority adjourns the hearing to a specified date it must forthwith notify the parties of the date, time and place to which the hearing has been adjourned.
Any points the Authority considers that it will want clarification on (if any):
If any party is withdrawing their application or representation then please contact us at LicensingTeam@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk without delay.
If any party is to rely on documentary/video or other material to support their representation or submission, please provide it as soon as possible in a legible/useable format (with any redactions having been made where appropriate). Late or on the day documentation/media production may not be admissible, in accordance with relevant regulations.
The Licensing Authority will also want reasonable clarification from Environmental Protection on noise readings, this can be provided to the authority in Map format.
The Licensing Authority will also want reasonable clarification from Suffolk Constabulary by providing CRIS and CAD reports appropriately redacted, as referenced in its representation and supporting information together with CCTV footage also referenced.
APPLICANT – RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES – INTERESTED PARTIES
Please ensure that you complete and return the attached ‘Attendance at Hearing Notice’ NO LATER than 5 (five) working days before the date of the hearing.
A party who wishes to withdraw any representations they have made should do so as soon as possible.
If you consider that the hearing is not necessary, the Licensing Authority may dispense with a hearing providing all parties subject to the hearing agree that a hearing is not necessary. If you consider this to be the case, then you should give notice to the authority as soon as possible.
Procedure to be followed at the hearing
The procedure is attached.
Rights of a Party
Regulations 15 and 16 attached.
Minutes:
The Chairman asked the Sub-Committee Members and officers in attendance at the meeting to introduce themselves.
The Chairman asked the Applicant (Trevor Cresswell - Leader of the Borehamgate Gt Eastern Road Residents Association) and Other Persons (Mr Dorrington) to introduce themselves.
The Chairman asked the Premises Licence Holder’s representative (David Dadds – Dadds Solicitors) to introduce himself, he then asked Mr Dadds to confirm that he had received copies of all the relevant representations. This was confirmed.
The Chairman asked the Responsible Authority representatives to introduce themselves:
Suffolk Constabulary – Sharon Betts-Palmer
Environmental Protection – Chris Cornish
Planning Enforcement – Simon Bailey
Mr Dadds asked for clarification of who was in attendance on behalf of the Responsible Authorities and who were being called as witnesses. The Licensing Officer confirmed that requests to call witnesses had been received from the Responsible Authorities and provided the information to the meeting:
Suffolk Constabulary – Robert Farrow and Oliver Williams
Environmental Protection – James Buckingham and Les King
The Suffolk Constabulary representative, Sharon Betts-Palmer advised the meeting that Robert Farrow was unable to attend, and that Oliver Williams was available to assist with any questions regarding the Sudbury area.
The Applicant, Trevor Cresswell advised that his son (Tom Cresswell) was unable to attend and asked if he could read out a statement on his behalf.
Mr Dadds asked for confirmation that Tom Cresswell had made his representation within the prescribed timescale. The Licensing Officer confirmed that Tom Cresswell was part of the Residents Association and therefore permitted to speak.
Mr Dadds referred to Hearing Regulation 8 regarding notice of witnesses attending hearings. He stated that he should have had advance notice of all witnesses attending the hearing and copies of their witness statements. He also questioned the membership of the Residents Association and whether it had a constitution.
The Environmental Protection representative, Chris Cornish clarified that himself, James Buckingham and Les King submitted their representation as the Environmental Protection team and that they would all be available to speak.
Mr Dadds requested further clarity on who would be making representations.
The meeting was adjourned between 10.45am and 11.30am for legal advice regarding the points made by Mr Dadds.
The Legal Advisor, Mr Smithet advised the meeting regarding the Licensing Act 2003, Hearing Regulations 8 and 22. He advised that an Attendance at Hearing form had been completed by Trevor Cresswell, the form included Tom Cresswell and that he had indicated that he intended to speak at the hearing but was unable to do so due to work commitments.
Mr Smithet advised the meeting that the Sub-Committee had agreed that Tom Cresswell’s statement could not be reasonably withheld and therefore it could be read out by Trevor Cresswell, however it would be read out as a hearsay statement and that the Sub-Committee would determine the appropriate weight to give it in their deliberations taking into account all the circumstances. Mr Smithet also advised that the Sub-Committee had agreed that it was appropriate for them to consider all available evidence, in fairness to all parties, that it had at its disposal at the hearing.
Mr Dadds responded that the Sub-Committee should only hear evidence from interested parties who had made relevant representations within 28 days and that he considered that Tom Cresswell had not met this requirement. He asked for confirmation that advance notice had been received that Tom Cresswell was a witness for the Residents Association.
The Chairman asked whether any party to the Hearing wished to withdraw either their application or their representation. It was confirmed that they did not.
The Chairman asked the Licensing Officer whether there had been any requests from the parties to call witnesses. The Licensing Officer confirmed that requests to call witnesses had been received and provided the information to the meeting:
Tom Cresswell for the Applicant
Oliver Williams for Suffolk Constabulary
James Buckingham and Les King for Environmental Protection
The Sub-Committee confirmed they were happy with all the requests to call witnesses.
Mr Dadds advised that the Premises Licence Holder, William Ward and his father were with him virtually and that he was representing them, and they would be able to answer any questions he needed assistance with.
The Chairman asked the Licensing Officer whether any of the parties had indicated they wished to present documentary (or other) material. The Licensing Officer confirmed that all supporting information had been submitted prior to the hearing date and accepted by the Licensing Sub-Committee, he also confirmed that there had been no requests to submit further supporting information today.
The Chairman asked the Applicant to estimate the time required to present their case. The Applicant replied approximately 6-7 minutes.
The Chairman asked the Premises Licence Holder’s representative to estimate the time required to present their case. The Premises License Holder’s representative replied approximately 2 hours.
The Chairman asked each of the Responsible Authorities to estimate the time required to present their case:
Suffolk Constabulary replied approximately 20 minutes, Environmental Protection replied approximately 10 minutes and Planning Enforcement representative replied a couple of minutes.
The Chairman asked the Licensing Officer to present his report.
The Licensing Officer introduced Paper B/LaSub/20/1 to enable the determination of a Review application made under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 by Borehamgate Gt Eastern Road Residents Association in respect of Caffeine Lounge, 14 Borehamgate Shopping Centre, Sudbury CO10 2EG.
At the conclusion of the Licensing Officer’s report, the Chairman asked each of the parties to the hearing in turn if they had any questions for the Licensing Officer.
The Licensing Officer answered questions from the Sub-Committee regarding his report and confirmed that Babergh DC is the owner of Borehamgate Precinct.
The Chairman asked the Applicant to present his case.
The Applicant, Trevor Cresswell presented his case to the hearing and read out a statement from Tom Cresswell.
Mr Dadds objected to the statement as it contained additional information not included in the representation in the report.
The Chairman and Legal Advisor asked the Applicant not to add to the information included in the representation.
Mr Cresswell confirmed that he was prepared to withdraw information not included in the representation.
At the conclusion of the Applicant’s case, the Chairman asked each of the parties to the hearing in turn if they had any questions for Mr Cresswell.
The Applicant answered questions from the Sub-Committee on his representation including: the fake CCTV camera, video footage, photos submitted, his relationship and interactions with the premises licence holder, the premises doors and precinct gates, noise issues and the effect on his quality of life.
The Applicant answered a question from the Environmental Protection Officer regarding noise issues when the premises doors are closed.
The meeting was adjourned between 12:45pm and 13:23pm.
The Applicant answered questions from the Premises Licence Holder’s representative on his representation including: his noise complaint to Environmental Protection, details of the Borehamgate Gt Eastern Road Residents Association, noise in the precinct when the doors and gates are closed, noise in Gt Eastern Road and the effect on his sleep.
Mr Dadds proceeded to question the Applicant on an incident detailed in the Police CAD reports. At this point the Sub-Committee resolved to exclude the public and to continue in private session.
Supporting documents: