Agenda and draft minutes

When the meeting commenced on Tuesday, 21 December 2021, Councillor Fearn was elected as the Chairman.

When the meeting was commenced on Tuesday, 21 December 2021, Councillor Fearn was elected Chairman for this meeting.

When the meeting commenced on Tuesday 21 December 2021, an apology for absence was received from Councillor McDonald and Councillor Mrs Elizabeth Turpin substituted.

When the meeting reconvened on Tuesday, 18 January 2022, an apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs Elizabeth Turpin.

When the meeting commenced on Tuesday, 21 December 2021, the Panel agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, would 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. 

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

There were none. 

When the meeting commenced on Tuesday, 21 December 2021, no interests were declared in respect of item 6.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct in respect of the additional item, this being item 7.  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.

This application was due to be considered on Tuesday, 21 December 2021. The meeting commenced and was adjourned to a later date to enable the Applicant’s agent to attend.

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of Famous Pizza, 44a Luton Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 5AB.

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

Representations have been received from the Police, Public Health and a local Community Group Big Local.  No agreements have been reached.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer advised that the applicant had applied for the sale of alcohol between the hours of 07:00 – 23:00. She confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required timescale. The Licensing Officer advised the Panel that the premises fell within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and that when the CIP was applied, and there were relevant representations, there was a rebuttable presumption of refusal by the Authority in all but exceptional circumstances, unless the applicant could demonstrate the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives.

In accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, the Licensing Officer had been in discussions with Planning and confirmed that the planning permission for the premises allowed hot food takeaway, Monday to Saturday from 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday or National Holidays from 10:00 to 22:00.

She advised that the matter had been put to the Licensing Hearing Panel because the Council had received representations from the Police, Public Health, and a Local Community Group and no agreements had been reached. The objections raised were relevant representations and related to all four of the licensing objectives.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Manchanda noted the requirements of the CIP but questioned whether Famous Pizza would add to the issues that existed in the area. Referring to the high density of licenced premises, he stated that the premises would only represent a half of 1% increase. Mr Manchanda stressed that the application was solely for the home delivery of alcohol with food and that it was therefore no different from delivery services such as Deliveroo, Just Eat or Uber Eats, who were not monitored. He therefore considered there to be exceptional circumstances in that there was a need to ensure local businesses were not disadvantaged. Mr Manchanda said that home delivery services had grown rapidly during the pandemic and that he should be permitted to order a pizza and beer for delivery from a local company.

In response to a question from Kent Police regarding the steps that the business would take to prevent its activities from adding to the issues that already existed in the local area, Mr Manchanda stressed that no alcohol would be displayed at the premises or sold over the counter. When making home deliveries, Challenge 25 would be applied, and all deliveries would be monitored and registered to ensure the four licensing objectives were met.

Mrs Murray, Public Health, questioned Mr Manchanda on his view that this application was exceptional, highlighting that the CIP expected all licenced premises to be well run. Mr Manchanda responded that a home delivery service would help the business to survive in the face of competition from delivery services from outside the CIP area. He added that the CIP did not take account of the growth in the home delivery sector. Referring to the link between alcohol and the high incidences of domestic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 612.

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of Grillers, 7 Canterbury Street, Gillingham, Kent ME7 5TP.

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

Representations have been received from the Police.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer advised that the applicant had applied for:

Late Night refreshment - Outdoors only

Non-standard timings - New Year’s Eve 23:00 to 01:00

Supply of Alcohol (on the premises) - Monday to Sunday 12:00 – 23:00

Non-standard timings – New Year’s Eve 12:00 - 01:00

She asked Members to note that the application submitted would mean that on New Year’s Eve, only alcohol would be sold on the premises between 23:00 – 01:00 and not food. If customers wanted food during this time, they would not be able to eat it on the premises. The applicant had subsequently stated that this was not his intention and had been an error on his part; he had selected ‘outdoor’ on the application because there was an outside eating area. He had confirmed that this part of the application could be removed but no written confirmation had been received. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required timescale.

In accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, the Licensing Officer had been in discussions with Planning and confirmed that the planning permission stated: ‘The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 11:00 to 00:00 Sunday to Wednesday including Public Holidays, between the hours of 11:00 to 00:30 on Thursdays and between the hours of 11:00 to 01:00 on Friday and Saturday’.

The Licensing Officer stated that the matter had been put to the Licensing Hearing Panel because the Council has received representations from the Police and no agreement had been reached. The objections raised were relevant representations and related to prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm.

In the absence of the applicant to present his case, the Chairman asked the representatives of Kent Police to present their objections. PC Hunt noted that the application described the premises as a Peri Peri Chicken restaurant. However, the area to be licenced, as shown on the plan attached to the supplementary agenda, was a Shisha Lounge to the rear of the premises. He therefore concluded that the proposed licence was for a bar rather than a restaurant. PC Hunt said that the applicant had been opposed to his suggested condition, that alcohol would only be sold with a substantial meal.

PC Hunt outlined the reasons for representation from Kent Police, as set out in the agenda report, noting that the premises were close to Gillingham High Street in an area that suffered from crime and anti-social behaviour. He was concerned that, if a licence was granted, people would seek to use the licenced part of the premises as a bar and the proposed operating schedule in the application did not reflect this use by setting out the appropriate policies that the Police would expect to be in place for a bar. Kent Police had therefore concluded that the proposed conditions were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 613.

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 item 6 and 7, because consideration of these matters 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.