Sussex, I'm not actually sure if it's been granted yet, or if that was still to be decided after the meeting.
It was reported in the press that because the all the objections were invalid then the application went through unopposed:
Dunfermline Press wrote:
Following a lengthy recess, committee convener Councillor Tom Adams moved that the objections should be disregarded which resulted in the application going through unopposed.
But the councillor who made all the thinly veiled digs at officialdom in the article further up the thread posted this on her Facebook page (this is just a broadly similar version of that earlier press article):
Councillor Carol Lindsay wrote:
Following today’s Regulation & Licensing Committee, and the consideration or otherwise of the ‘Uber’ application, I came away with questions about how we ensure both the public and councillors are properly supported through what can be a complex licensing application process.
A procedural legal issue was raised at today’s hearing concerning whether objections received by the Council met the statutory requirements to be considered as objections.
That immediately raised a question for me about preparation. If there were potential issues around the competency of such a large number of objections, could these have been identified earlier in the process, including through the normal preparation and agenda planning discussions involving officers and the Committee leadership?
That isn’t about prejudging the application or criticising anyone for raising a legitimate legal argument. It is about asking whether our processes could be more robust.
Members of the public who take the time to engage with a Council process should have confidence that their representations are processed properly and, where they meet the legal requirements, that their views can be heard and where they many not. That they will be advised how to make them ‘legal’.
Equally, councillors sitting on regulatory committees need sufficient information before us to separate fact from assertion, fact from myth, and matters that are legally relevant from those that are not.
Today demonstrated to me why both matter.
I am not expressing a view for or against the application, which remains a live matter. My concern is about the process and what lessons we need to learn from today’s experience.
Whatever the eventual outcome, Fifers should be able to have confidence that our licensing procedures are clear, robust and fair, and councillors should have the information necessary to carry out the responsibilities placed upon them.
So she's saying it's still a live matter, which I took to mean that because there were no valid objections then it would be delegated to officials to decide (which would be what normally happens - it normally only goes to committee if there are objections raised, as far as I know).
But maybe she just means that it's still disputed and/or subject to appeal, or whatever.
Or maybe she's just spinning a line. Or something like that
But I'm just leaving them all to get on with it. In the meantime, at least
Login
Register
FAQ
