Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Browne was elected Chairperson for this meeting.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Fearn.

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 Application for the Premises Licence at The Cricketers Inn, 88 High Street, Rainham following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined in the agenda.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a full variation to the Premises Licence for The Cricketers Inn, 88 High Street, Rainham, ME8 7JH. The application was to remove and vary several conditions on the premises licence as set out in Appendix B to the report.

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and a representation had been received from a member of the public relating to the prevention of public nuisance.

The Panel noted that the objector was not in attendance however they had submitted a short recording which they requested the Panel viewed as it illustrated their concerns.

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

The agent explained that the application was to vary the conditions stated and there was no change to the permitted hours. The Panel were informed that the current conditions were added following a review of the Premises Licence in 2018 and in the last 7 years improvements had been made, particularly in the last 2 years. A supporting email from PC Andre Smuts was shared with the Panel regarding the improvements. An error with the date in the email which referred to 2029 was noted and should state 2019.

The agent informed the Panel that the Police did not object to the application and issues which were previously a cause for concern has dissipated in the last 2 years since Lyndsay Pilbeam had been appointed as the General Manager/Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). The Panel were informed of the good working relationship the premises has with the community, nearby church and local residents.

The agent suggested an amendment to condition 17 that rather than remove the condition, it should be replaced with a condition that the rear garden (nearest to local residents) should be cleared of customers no later than 23:00.. This amendment was suggested to protect local residents.

The Panel heard that there had been no representations received from the Police or Environmental Health. There had been 2 engagements with Samantha Clark (the objector) where concerns about noise were raised. On the first occasion in July 2024, the objector called the DPS and was informed that there was no live entertainment and the noise must be coming from a nearby premises. On the second occasion (2 August 2025) which is subject of the recording submitted, the front door of the premises had been left open to assist with access for a wheelchair user. The agent explained that the DPS acknowledged the doors should not have been left open, but it was done with good intentions and staff have been advised it must not happen again.

The Panel questioned the applicant and confirmed that there had only been 2 instances of engagement with the objector.

The Panel queried the email provided by PC Andre Smuts as it did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 261.

To consider a Full Variation Application for the Premises Licence at Newlands Newsagents, 111 High Street, Rochester following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson acknowledged that the applicant had arrived for the hearing earlier but had now left for unknown reasons and attempts to contact them by telephone were unsuccessful.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a full variation of the premises licence for Newlands Newsagents, 111 High Street, Rochester, ME1 1JS which was in a cumulative impact area (CIA).  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from the Public Health team, members of the Rochester City Centre Forum and a local resident.

The application was to vary the hours for the sale by retail of alcohol from 07:00 to 19:30 every day to 07:00 to 21:30 every day.

As the applicant was not present the Chairperson noted that the Panel had read the application and that questions could not be asked by the Objectors or Panel.

The objectors were then given the opportunity to express their concerns.

The Public Health representative expressed concern regarding the location of the premises in the CIA which covers Rochester High Street and surrounding areas. Issues in the area with street drinking, alcohol related crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance were highlighted, and the Panel were referred to crime rates in Appendix C to the report.

Mrs Sarah Tranter, a local resident and member of the Rochester City Centre Forum, expressed concerns regarding street drinking, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. The Panel were informed of recent anti-social behaviour that had been witnessed in the area. Mrs Tranter acknowledged the value of the premises provided by the applicants and the marvellous job that they did but felt that if the hours were extended to 21:30 it would add to problems in what was already a vulnerable area.

The Panel confirmed that both objectors present were objecting to the length of the hours being extended by 2 hours.

With the exception of the Legal Representative and the Democratic Services Officer, all present, left the room during the Panel’s deliberations, returning to hear the Panel’s decision.

Decision:

The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had sufficient notice and knowledge of the hearing. The Applicant had attended but left prior to the hearing taking place. There had been numerous attempts to contact the Applicant. In that circumstance, the Panel had determined that it is in the public interest to hold the hearing in the Applicant’s absence pursuant to The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, regulation 20(2)(b). In doing so, pursuant to regulation 20(3), the Panel has considered the application and supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant.

The Panel carefully considered the individual merits of the application, including the written representations, objections and also the oral representations heard. This included submissions from Public Health and Sarah Trantor.

The application relies on commercial viability to justify an extension of the licensable hours but offers no evidence to demonstrate how the additional hours will not add  ...  view the full minutes text for item 262.

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 agendas item 6 and 7, because consideration of this matter in public would disclosure information falling within paragraph 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.