Agenda and minutes

The panel is requested to elect a Chairman for the hearing in line with rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee. 

Councillor Hicks was elected as Chairman.  

To agree that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the panel, sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

The Panel agreed that the Chairman sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting.

There were none.  

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

There were none. 

The Panel heard an application for a review of a premises licence by Environmental Health, Medway Council, in respect of The Ship, 22 Bill Street Road, Strood, Kent, ME2 4RA.

              The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised the meeting that the review related to the following licensing objective: the prevention of public nuisance. She confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003. She also referred to and explained each of the appendices to the report. This included the existing premises licence (Appendix A), a plan showing the location of the premises (Appendix B), a copy of the review application (Appendix C) and three letters in support of the premises (Appendix D).

The panel heard from the Applicant:

·        That the Council had received complaints from local residents regarding noise nuisance.

·        That a statutory nuisance had been witnessed by the Environmental Health Team and subsequently served a notice on the Licence Holder.

·        That condition 16 of the premises licence (reproduced or live music is to be set at a level so as not to be audible at the façade of the nearest residential property) had been broken as result of the noise nuisance.

·        That the Environmental Health Team did not want the premises licence to be revoked but requested that it was modified with regards to the noise nuisance to neighbouring properties.

The Premises Licence Holder’s Solicitor asked the applicant questions including:

·        Whether there had been any complaints since September 2011?

There had been further complaints on 9 October 2011 and 29 October 2011.

·        Whether the complaints had been received from one property?

The complaints against the Ship had been received from one property.

·        Whether Environmental Health were aware of the steps taken by the Licence Holder in the last 18 months?

The Environmental Health Officer was aware of a number of steps including the erection of a smoking hut, double-doors to the back of the pub, the installation of double-glazing and the purchase of a noise-limiter although it was unclear whether it had been installed.

·        Whether Environmental Health accepted that the Licence Holder had sought their assistance?

The Environmental Health Officer agreed that the Licence Holder had sought assistance from the Council.

·        Whether the complainant lived at the nearest property to the Ship?

The Environmental Health Officer could not confirm this.

·        The level of recent communication between Environmental Health and the Licence Holder

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that she had hand delivered the application for a review to the premises.

·        Whether the complaints related to Saturdays?

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed this.

·        With reference to 7 August 2011 (a call at 2:10am), as set out on p24 of the agenda, whether there was any amplified music equipment permanently on site?

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that there was no such equipment on site.

The Panel asked the applicant questions including:

·        Whether triple-glazing had been installed at the premises?

The Environmental Health Officer confirmed this had been installed other than for some very small  ...  view the full minutes text for item 543.

(Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Clerk to the Panel advised that the Applicant had arrived at Gun Wharf at around 9.45am. He then left Gun Wharf, on being advised that this hearing would commence at 11.30am, and returned at 11.20am. He subsequently left Gun Wharf at approximately 11.35am, having told reception staff that he was due to receive an urgent telephone call. The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer contacted the Applicant’s Agent at Midday to inform her that the hearing would start in 15 minutes time. The hearing commenced at 12.20pm).

The Panel heard an application for a new premises licence in respect of Kubus Convenience, 88 High Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4DS:

Hours for the supply of alcohol – off the premises

Monday to Sunday            08:00 to 23:00

Hours the premises are open to the public

Monday to Sunday            08:00 to 23:00

              The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003. She also referred to and explained each of the appendices to the report. This included the application (Appendix A), a copy of the floor plan (Appendix B), a plan showing the location of the premises (Appendix C) and a copy of the representation made by Kent Police (Appendix D).

The panel heard from the Objector:

·        That HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC), in conjunction with other agencies including Trading Standards, recovered foreign cigarettes which were smuggled goods on 18 October. This represented an estimated loss to the Government in excess of £25,750 in evaded import duty.

·        That the investigation currently sat with the HMRC.

·        That any subsequent convictions would usually lead to custodial sentences.

·        That with regard to the licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003, the Applicant was not upholding the objective relating to the prevention of crime and disorder.

·        That, in his experience, the proceeds from the smuggling of goods was used as a vehicle for criminality.

·        That the grant of a premises licence would cause concern for licensing enforcement teams at both Kent Police and Medway Council.

The panel asked questions of the Objector including:

·        Whether the Applicant had been prosecuted for any crime in respect of the recovery of smuggled goods.

The Objector confirmed that the ongoing investigation was being carried out by the HMRC. With regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the matter should be considered on the balance of probabilities rather than criminal standard proof.

·        Whether the Police or the HMRC had interviewed the Applicant since the recovery of smuggled goods.

The Objector stated that neither the Police nor the HMRC had interviewed the Applicant.

·        Whether the Applicant was on the premises at the time of the HMRC visit on 18 October.

The Objector stated that he did not know if the Applicant was on the premises at the time.

Decision:

The Panel, on the basis of the evidence and having noted that the Applicant had not attended the hearing, refused the application for a Premises Licence.