More concerning Vue Entertainment's application for late hours licensing

For those who have been following this thread, here is a copy of my latest letter to the solicitors acting for Vue Entertainment. By way of background, they asked to meet (at a venue to be arranged by us) so that we could be 'informed' about their proposals.

As you have suggested, I declined the invitation, and here is my reply on behalf of the group.

Jonathan,

I am habitually willing to convene or attend meetings with regard to resolving issues, especially in relation to licensing matters.

Here however, I have a small problem, namely that in the past, Vue Entertainment's project developers have declined to engage with our Residents' group - indeed they have ignored our correspondence; and before issuing your extensive licensing application, Vue Entertainment Ltd made no attempt to contact or inform local residents' groups. Thus, we have got off to a poor start, with confidence in your clients being in issue.

You will be aware of the residents' position from the detailed objection that we have sent to Patrick Montgomery, the Licensing Officer (copied into this message). Our objection sets out a compromise position, to which you make no reference. As president of the South Terrace Residents' group, and their pro bono legal adviser, I would be willing to meet with you, but before doing so, we would need to agree an agenda for the meeting, and to have sight of your compromise proposals. 

This is not a case where the residents instruct me that they seek or require further information concerning the operation of Vue Entertainment and their proposed licensing practice. They are simply seeking a more proportionate application by them concerning the issue of late hours. 

I would have thought that this could be agreed quickly and conveniently in correspondence. If we are able to reach such compromise, the residents' group will withdraw its objection, and support the revised proposal. If not, my current instructions are to oppose the totality of Vue Entertainment's application.

By way of progressing this matter, I suggest the following:

1. Vue Entertainment provide a detailed written response to our concerns (as set out in our formal objection). I suggest that Patrick Montgomery, Licensing Officer, is again copied into this by way of open correspondence.
2. The response should include Vue Entertainment's compromise proposals with regard to licensing hours.
3. The Residents' group will provide a written response to your revised proposal, copying the Patrick into our reply.
4. If an agreed compromise can be reached, I will undertake on behalf of the residents, to withdraw our current objections, and indeed to support your clients' application.
5. If no agreement is reached, I propose that we seek a joint meeting with Patrick Montgomery, with the purpose of seeking to resolve the matter, or at least narrow and define any remaining differences. This will be of value to the Licensing Committee.

Please excuse the formality of my response. You will understand that I am acting on behalf of residents that are very concerned about the implications for them of Vue Entertainment's application, and I am aware that an adjudication by the Licensing Committee may be required.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Twist