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 Fearn was elected Chairman for this meeting.

There were none.

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

It was agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, would sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

There were none. 

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 5.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

The applicant has applied for a new premises licence in respect of Fresh Market, 313a High Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4BN. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003. Representations have been received from the Police, Public Health, Licensing Enforcement and a local support group and no agreement has been reached.

Discussion:

The Chairman asked those present to introduce themselves and explained the process that the hearing would follow. He asked that no reference be made to the exempt information that formed part of the representation by the Police and advised that this would be considered after the Panel had voted on whether to exclude the press and public from the hearing.

The Licensing Officer stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for a new premises licence for the supply of alcohol off the premises in respect of Fresh Market, 313a High Street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4BN. She confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required period.

The application was for the supply of alcohol off the premises between 0800 hours and 2100 hours Monday to Sunday. In accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, the Licensing Officer had been in discussion with Planning Services and confirmed that the premises had no planning history so class or hours could not be confirmed.

Representations had been received from Kent Police, Public Health, Licensing Enforcement and a local support group. The Licensing Officer advised that the Licensing Enforcement Officer had submitted apologies as he was unable to attend the hearing due to a prior commitment.

The following documents were included in the agenda report for the Panel’s consideration: -

•           Appendix A – The application for a new premises licence.

•           Appendix B – Location Plan.

•           Appendix C – Representations. Part of the representations from the Police were attached as an Exempt Appendix to item 8 of the agenda.

The Chairman invited the applicant to present the application for a premises licence. Mr Ali said that he had applied for a premises licence to help him sustain his grocery business, which employed three people, through the sale of alcohol. He added that he was willing to accept any condition on the licence.  

There being no questions, the Chairman invited those who had submitted representations against the application to state their objections. PC Cosser said that the applicant had not contacted Kent Police to discuss the application. The premises were located within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and applicants were expected to have knowledge of the area when describing the steps they proposed to take to promote the licensing objectives. However, it was the view of the Police that no account had been taken in the application of the high levels of crime, street drinking and litter. Kent Police had therefore concluded that, if a premises licence was to be granted, the premises would have a negative effect on the area.

PC Cosser called PC Ince as a witness and asked him to describe his work in the area. PC Ince said that he was the Police Officer for Chatham Town Centre and, although progress had been made with issues such as homelessness, begging and street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

In accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises licence in respect of Taj Cuisine, 1 Sherwood House, Walderslade, Chatham, Kent, ME5 9UD. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

Discussion:

The Chairman asked those present to introduce themselves and explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined in the agenda.

The Licensing Officer stated that, in accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing Premises Licence for Taj Cuisine, 1 Sherwood House, Walderslade, Chatham, Kent, ME5 9UD. She advised that the grounds for the review related to two of the four licensing objectives:

·          The prevention of crime and disorder

·          Public safety

The application had been correctly advertised for the required timescale by placing notices at the premises, Council contact points and on the Council’s website in accordance with regulations made under the Licensing Act 2003.  Also in accordance with the legislation, notice of the application (and the application itself) had been served on the relevant parties for the licensed premises along with the other responsible authorities.

The following documents were included in the agenda pack for the Panel’s consideration: -

• Appendix A - A copy of the current premises licence.
• Appendix B - A copy of a plan showing the location of the premises.
• Appendix C - A copy of the Application for Review.

The Licensing Officer drew the Panel’s attention to the grounds for the review in relation to the licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003 and also to paragraph 3 of the agenda report - Advice and analysis on determination of review application, which set out the options for the Panel.

The Chairman invited the representatives from Kent Police to present the application for a licence review.  PC Hunt outlined the visits to the premises by Home Office Immigration Officers executing a warrant. He had also been in attendance for a visit on 18 January 2019 when a total of four people had been found to be working at the premises illegally. All four persons had been interviewed at the scene and admitted to working at the premises. PC Hunt informed the Panel that he had subsequently met the owner and Designated Premises Supervisor, Mr Monsur, on 29 January 2019 to conduct a premises licence compliance check. This had found that, contrary to Condition 5 of the licence, the CCTV system appeared to be faulty. PC Hunt advised that Immigration Officers had executed a further warrant on 15 February 2019 when one person was found to be working illegally. Mr Monsur had claimed that this person was a relative of the chef who was getting some food for himself. As a result of the two warrants, Taj Cuisine had been served with two separate Civil Penalty Notices.

PC Hunt presented evidence from Immigration Officers of previous occasions when persons had been found to be working at the premises illegally. These were on 27 August 2008 and 22 February 2013.

With reference to sections 11.24, 11.27 and 11.28 of the Guidance to the Licensing Act 2003 and detailing the implications of employing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

It is recommended that the Panel exclude the press and public from the meeting during the consideration of a document and during the decision-making process for the reasons set out in the report. 

Decision:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making in respect of agenda items 6 and 7, and consideration of the exempt appendix in respect of agenda item 6, because consideration of this matter in public would disclosure information falling within paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as specified in agenda item 8 (Exclusion of the Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.