Agenda and draft minutes

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

Councillor McDonald was elected Chairperson for this meeting.

There were none.

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

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

The Chairperson 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. 

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.

To consider a full variation to a club premises certificate application for Walderslade Working Men’s Club and Institute, 274 Walderslade Road, Chatham. ME5 0PA following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda and noted that the applicant had received a copy of the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

The Assistant Licensing Manager informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a Full Variation at Walderslade Working Men’s Club and Institute, 274 Walderslade Road Chatham ME5 0PA.  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representatives had been received from members of the public.

The current premises licence was:

Supply of Alcohol

Monday to Sunday 12:00 to 00:00

Non-standard times: New Years Eve 11:00 to New Years Day 24:00

The hours being applied for:

Supply of Alcohol

Friday to Sunday 10:30 to 01:00

The application also included the increase of the footprint of the licenced area of the premises to include the carpark.

The Chairperson invited the applicant to speak in support of their application and the applicant explained

Ms Brown, the applicant, explained that the premises had been and established part of the community for nearly 90 years. She was a responsible operator and committed to being a good member of the community. The club effectively managed noise disturbance, and all windows and doors were closed during live events and of these premises seriously. Notices had been installed reminding customers, when they left the premises, to be quiet and respectful of the local residents.

The applicant added that she did not believe the changes would affect parking or create congestion, she had discussed the proposed changes with the community. She had agreed to move the fish stall and install a 6ft fence to ensure privacy and create a smoking area which would stop patrons smoking outside the front of the premises.

The Chairperson asked the objectors if they had any questions for the applicant

Mr Le Mar stated that in discussion with the applicant it was indicated that the additional opening hours would be used for special occasions, he asked why the application had been made for increased hours every Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Ms Brown explained that it was not intended for the increased opening hours to be used all the time, later opening hours would be used during particular events such as sporting events but provided flexibility for the club. Earlier opening hours would be used to offer breakfast for patrons.

Mr Le Mar clarified that he did not object to the earlier morning opening hours, he asked why the applicant had chosen to request the beer garden remain open until 9pm instead of the 7pm discussed with the neighbours.

The Applicant stated that it would provide flexibility, but they have offered to build a fence to ensure privacy.

The Panel than asked the Applicant to confirm if they wanted to use the later opening all year round or for particular events. The Applicant confirmed that they wanted to use the later opening hours for particular events and to give the premises more flexibility, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider a new premises application for the Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road, Chatham following the submission of a representation, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda and noted that the applicant had received a copy of the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a New Premises Application at Best Food Centre, 15 – 19 New Road,

Chatham, ME4 4QJ.  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representatives had been received from, a member of the public, Medway Council Public Health and Kent Police.

The Chairperson invited the applicant to speak in support of their application. Mr Dadds, the agent for the applicant, explained that a previous application had been made and refused. This was a new application and would be judged on its own merits. The presumption was that an application would be permitted where the premises met the four licensing objectives and it was his submission that those objectives would be met with the conditions offered.

The premises is in Chatham cumulative impact area. The cumulative impact area means that there is concern that there are issues in the area relating to alcohol, including street drinking and littering that need to be addressed. The guidance has in the past set out that there is a presumption of rebuttal to a new premises licence and the applicant was required to show why there should be an exception to the local policy to allow the license. This rebuttal assumption has been superseded by statutory guidance which states that if the Council were to refuse that application it would need to explain why those conditions would not meet the concerns and address the licensing objectives.

Mr Dadds stated that it was the applicants view that representations from Kent Police and Public Health Medway Council did not provide specific information regarding nearby premises as the cause of the of the issues in the area. The Panel has to avoid generalisation and need to consider data specific, evidence based, justified and proportionate when making their decision. A recent Magistrates Court decision held that non-specific general data held little weight in decision making.  In this case it was the applicants submission that there was a lack of data nearby and the data presented had not shown a causal link between the recorded crime and nearby premises.

Mr Dadds acknowledged that there were organisations nearby which provided support services to those with alcohol problems such as the Probation Office, but it would be a breach of probation terms if users of the service attended appointments intoxicated. He added that service users attending probation services already had to pass three or four similar premises and no evidence had been presented that this was a cause for concern.

Mr Dadds stated that they had offered robust conditions which would help the premises to meet the licensing objectives, for example they had offered to join the teams link radio system for no less than one year and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

It is recommended that the Panel exclude the press and public from the meeting 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 appendices in respect of agenda item 6 and 7 because consideration of this matter in public would disclosure information falling within paragraph 5 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 – on the grounds that it relates to information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. 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.