Agenda item

            The Building Control Manager pointed out that, at this stage, the Committee would not be considering the application but would do so when the applicants and their legal representatives were re-admitted to the meeting.

            He then proceeded to outline to the Committee the rationale for restricting the report and that this related to a previous event at the venue in respect of which there was currently an internal disciplinary investigation against a member of staff.

            The applicants, Mr. G. Flynn and Mr. L. Lynch, and their legal representative, Ms. M. Lowry, were at this stage re-admitted to the meeting.  The Building Control Manager reiterated to the Members of the deputation the reasons why they had been excluded for a short period and the Committee had not, as yet, commenced consideration of the applications.

            The Building Control Manager then proceeded to review the applications which were for the grant of a Seven-Day Annual Indoor Entertainments Licence and a Seven-Day Annual Outdoor Entertainments Licence for the former B&Q building, now known as South 13, based on the Council’s standard conditions to provide indoor music, singing, dancing or any other entertainment of a like kind, theatrical performances, a circus and outdoor musical entertainment.

            The applicants and their legal representative were thereupon invited to the table to address a number of the issues which had been raised within the report.

            Ms Lowry, solicitor for the applicant, stated that the applicant wished to reserve its position in relation to some of the contents of the report as it was factually incorrect. The Chairperson advised that there was a disciplinary investigation ongoing and the Committee could not do anything which could prejudice that investigation. The Chairperson pointed out that this was the first time the Committee was aware there was an issue with the contents of the report. The Committee was advised that the report had only been shared with the applicant recently and the applicant would probably take issue with some of the contents. Ms Lowry advised the Committee that the report should not detract from the rights of the applicant and that, subsequent to conviction, the applicant had been granted a licence for other premises on 3 occasions. The Deputation then answered a number of questions from the Members and they retired from the table.

Proposed by Councillor McReynolds,

Seconded by Councillor Hutchinson,

      That the Committee agrees to defer consideration of the applications until the internal disciplinary investigation had concluded.

            As there were no amendments to the proposal, the Chairperson permitted the deputation to again address the Committee to outline the effects a deferral would have on their business.

            Ms. Lowry advised the Committee that the proposal for the deferral would have a serious impact on the company as to whether or not it could continue to trade.  It was suggested that the Council could grant a temporary licence for a period of three months to allow the disciplinary investigation to be completed.  The applicants stated that they would be willing to contribute to the investigations.

            Mr Lynch stated that the deferment would be detrimental to the enterprise and would seriously compromise its relationship with the existing and potential future clients.  He pointed out that the music events were only a small percentage of the events run at the venue but the revenue raised at those enabled the other events to take place.

            The Chairman again thanked the deputation for their presentation and they retired from the table.

            Some members pointed out that they felt they were dealing with the matter without all the information and therefore could not consider the application until the disciplinary investigation was concluded. Others felt that the applicant was not the subject of the Council’s disciplinary investigation and as such a decision on the application should be made.

            Upon a request for advice from a Member, the Council’s solicitor advised the Committee it had to take into account the rights of the applicant, which should only be interfered with when it was proportionate and necessary to do so. The Committee also had to consider whether the evidence gathered in the investigation could be a material factor in determining the application.  She advised that was a matter for the Committee and the Courts were usually slow to interfere in such decisions.

            The proposal standing in the name of Councillor McReynolds and seconded by Councillor Hutchinson to defer the applications was put to the meeting.

            On a recorded vote, thirteen Members voted for the proposal and two against, with three no votes, and it was declared carried.