To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

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.

No declarations of personal of prejudicial interests were made.

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

The rules of procedure were noted.

At the invitation of the Chair, the Licensing Officer presented the report circulated as agenda item 4.1

The Chair advised that it had not been possible to circulate the video evidence presented at Appendix 50; therefore with the agreement of all parties this video evidence would be viewed at the start of the hearing.  Additionally the Clerk advised that the objectors wished to circulate additional papers at the meeting and the applicant was asked to consider whether they would consent to this request.

The meeting paused at 6:45pm to permit the video evidence to be viewed by all parties and with the permission of the applicant, additional papers were submitted by objectors for inspection by the applicant’s party.

The hearing resumed at 6:50pm and the video evidence was noted.  Mr Edwards, legal representative for the applicant agreed that the additional written representations and video evidence be admitted.  Ms King, an interested party, offered to make photographs taken with a mobile device, which endorsed the additional evidence submitted, available to be viewed at the meeting.

The Chair offered each party 20 minutes in which to make their representations and advised that the time taken to view video evidence offered by the objectors would be discounted.

The hearing paused again at 6:53pm to allow objectors to agree how they wished to present their representations and resumed at 6:54pm.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr, Edwards, legal representative for the applicant, made representations supporting the application.  He informed the Sub Committee that the Troxy was one of few large venues located in the area of central London.  The application to vary the licence had been made in order to allow the applicant to operate more flexibily.  For comparative purposes of the Sub Committee was informed of the licensable hours operated by other large venues such as Alexandra Palace the Coronet and Coco.  For large scale events, the Troxy employed 100 people from the borough from managerial to technical and support roles to help deliver these events.

The application concerned additional hours for the sale of alcohol, late night refreshment and regulated entertainment for 24 occasions per year.  Its purpose was competitive; to give flexibility at weekends and meet customer demand for large venues.  Conditions offered by the applicant were given at page 17 of the agenda.  Additionally, in response to objectors’ concerns extra conditions had been offered at page 235 of the agenda at items 1, 2 and 3.

The applicant offered

• that there would be no access to the venue after 02:00 (this would be consistent with the present licence)
• that a new controller be installed
• the arrangements regarding the Street Teams around the premises would be formalised into a full licence condition to ensure that patrons were quickly moved away from the vicinity.  It was noted that the Troxy management, at egress, already undertook to guide patrons away in a direction to East of the premises which was less residential.

The Legal Adviser submitted that the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Nil items.