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 Mrs Diane Chambers 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 of 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. 

Discussion:

The panel heard an application for a review of the premises licence in respect of the Rose Inn, 1-3 Catherine Street, Rochester.

The Senior Licensing Officer informed the panel that in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from Kent Police for the review under three of the licensing objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.

The police stated that the reasons for the review were as follows:-

·        A serious assault had taken place inside the premises on 8 February 2011 causing injuries which were to be prosecuted as grievous bodily harm (gbh)

·        The victim was taking Warfarin tablets and the incident could have caused a lot more harm than it actually did

·        This serious issue, and CCTV footage, showed that the pub was not under control by the bar staff prior to, during and after the assault

·        The police had not been called following the incident and this also highlighted the poor management. The bar person did not even call an ambulance

·        CCTV footage also showed people smoking inside the premises, who were also clearly drunk at the time of the incident and yet were continued to be served more alcohol

·        The problems at the premises began on 19 July 2010 when the previous Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) left the employment of Riverside View Ltd but remained as the named DPS of the Rose Inn, even though he no longer had any day to day dealings with the premises

·        Following information about the assault, the police visited the premises on 8 February 2011 and the leaseholder (who lived at the premises) refused to speak to the police, which was completely unacceptable behaviour.

As part of the application, the police asked the panel to consider the various courses of action in the following order:

Ø      revoke the premises licence, or

Ø      suspend the premises licence for 3 months and impose the conditions set out in the application, or

Ø      suspend the premises licence until the conditions set out in the application are complied with to the satisfaction of the police or the Licensing Authority.

The panel then viewed a section of CCTV footage showing the assault and following few minutes in the bar after the incident until the victim regained consciousness.

Mr Walker (solicitor) representing the management company Riverside View Ltd., responded that this had been a one-off incident at a premises with no previous problems by an individual with known violent behaviour. The victim had also been drinking upstairs (he lived at the premises) and there were no visible signs of bleeding or damage to his face on the CCTV footage. There were no members of the public in the bar at the time, or admitted, as the door was locked. These were all outside issues and not down to the alleged
mis-management of the premises.

The police responded that this property was a licensed premise that had to comply with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 957.