Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of MS8 Limited, Dockhead Road, Chatham Maritime Kent, ME4 3ED. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

 

Representations have been received from the Police and from members of the public. Agreement has been reached with Environmental Health.

Discussion

 

The Chairman advised that the process the hearing would follow was set out on page 3 of the agenda pack.

 

The Licensing Officer stated that an application for a new premises licence in respect of MS8 Limited, Dockhead Road, Chatham Maritime Kent, ME4 3ED had been received to include:

 

Plays Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Films Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Boxing or wrestling entertainments Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Live music Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Recorded music Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Performance of dance Outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

Supply of alcohol Indoors and outdoors Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 22:00

 

Agreement had been reached with Environmental Health by adding conditions to the operating schedule as set out at Appendix D to the report.

 

The application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required timescale.

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed that, in accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, discussions with Planning Services had confirmed that the class of use for the site was D2 leisure and the hours were 8:30 – 23:00 Monday to Sunday, including public holidays. A further planning application was pending.

 

The matter had been put to the Licensing Hearing Panel as the Council had received relevant representations from the Police and from members of the public relating to all four of the licensing objectives:

 

·       The prevention of crime and disorder

·       Public safety

·       The prevention of public nuisance

·       The protection of children from harm 

 

The following documents were included in the agenda pack:

 

Appendix A pages 11 – 24 – Application for new premises licence

Appendix B page 25 - Location plan

Appendix C pages 27 – 46 – Copies of representations received

Appendix D page 47 – Agreement with Environmental Health

 

The Chairman invited the applicant to present the application for a new premises licence. Mr Sutton said he had been working with the Licensing Department ahead of submitting his application. Planning permission had previously been granted for a climbing centre at the site. This work had been progressing but had been halted by Covid-19 in March 2020. It had been hoped that a drive-in film or pantomime could be hosted at the site ahead of Christmas 2020 but it had not been possible to make the required arrangements in time.

 

It would not now be possible for the site to be developed until 2022 and the aim therefore was to use it for events in the meantime. These events had not yet been planned in detail and therefore it had not been possible to provide specifics in the licensing application. Agreement had been reached with Environmental Health and a conversation had been had with Kent Police. Subject to the outcome of the Panel, Mr Sutton said he would be open to conditions being added to the licence granted. He confirmed that he was not looking to run events at the site 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. In relation to the application for an alcohol licence, Mr Sutton had been approached by two markets with a view to holding a food and drink festival type event. In the short term, the aim was to use Machine Shop Number 8 to run events that would enhance the local community while respecting social distancing requirements.

 

The Chairman invited the objectors to ask Mr Sutton questions. In response to questions from PC Hunt, Mr Sutton said that he worked for WD, the company that owned Dockside Shopping Centre as well as the Machine Shop. Engagement was taking place with two firms with a view to finding a firm to manage events taking place at the site. Events taking place would benefit from use of the shopping centre’s resources, such as CCTV.

 

In the long term the ambition remained to develop a climbing centre at the site but Mr Sutton wanted to host events at the site in the interim that would enhance the local community. The licenses that had been applied for were to facilitate these events and it was considered that there was minimal chance that it would be possible to develop the site in 2021.

 

Mr Sutton advised that the capacity for drive in events would be 55 to 60 cars and that engines would have to be switched off during events. Should the rules on social distancing be relaxed, consideration could be given to holding non drive-in events which might be expected to accommodate 200 to 400 people. Events such as a food and drink festival could attract higher attendances, but these people would not all be attending at the same time. The licensed area would be cordoned off during events with entrances and exits controlled. Market events would be slightly different to give people freedom to move around the area but there would still be specific entrances and exits.

 

The grass area at the premises would not be used by the public when they were being used as a drive-in cinema. It would be cordoned off and used for equipment storage. The road between the green space and the structure at the site had a drop kerb, therefore cars would enter at this point and exit via Dock Head Road. This would be controlled by stewards. The screen for film screening would be at the Dock Head Road or Co-Op end of the site with cars parking in the main section of the building. The positioning of the screen would ensure that light emitted did not affect local residents.

 

It was anticipated that events would be staffed by an external contractor but MS8 would attend either in-person or remotely and would retain overall responsibility for the event. It was not currently known exactly what type of events would be held at the site. It had been anticipated that the planned drive-in pantomime would have been used as a test event to help assess options for future events. Possible events discussed included plays or a non-drive-in cinema. Such an event would adhere to current social distancing guidelines and the audio would be delivered via headphones.

 

PC Hunt said that proposals to hold a cinema or market at the site were not likely to be of concern to Kent Police. However, the application submitted covered a wide range of possible licensable activity at the site that did not reflect the events being proposed. PC Hunt questioned why this was. In response, Mr Sutton said the licensing application had been submitted quickly with a view to a pantomime being organised. He had discussed plans with the local authority and had understood that his best option would be to apply for every licensable activity that might be undertaken at the site. He confirmed that he was not planning to host live boxing or wrestling at the site but might want to show some sporting events on a big screen. It had been anticipated that the application could be amended accordingly after the pantomime had been run as a test event.

 

PC Hill said that he would have expected the application submitted to have explained the proposed business plan and how proposed events would meet the licensing objectives. As this information had not been included, it was difficult for the Police to assess the viability of the application from a crime and disorder or public nuisance perspective. In view of this lack of information, Kent Police were concerned about the possibility of live music events and live sporting events, which were considered to be higher risk, taking place at the site.

 

Mr Sutton said that there had not being time to provide more detail in the application as doing so would have meant it could not have been submitted in time for the proposed pantomime to take place. It was requested that the Panel consider conditioning the licence to reflect the type of events that might take place at the site during the current year.

 

PC Hill said that any licence granted would be on an ongoing basis and would not just cover events that could take place in 2021. In response to further questions from PC Hill, Mr Sutton said that live theatre shows were a possibility. Music would be transmitted directly via earpieces or into cars rather than via on site speakers.

 

One of the conditions agreed with Environmental Health was that noise pollution would be monitored on an event-by-event basis. Should amplified music be considered then this would be detailed in a noise management plan that would be agreed with Environmental Health prior to the event. PC Hill expressed concern that the wording of the proposed condition would mean that it could not be enforced.

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that the wording of the proposed condition agreed with Environmental Health would have the effect that no amplified music would be permitted without this having been agreed under a noise management plan. Following confirmation that Mr Sutton was not planning to host boxing or wrestling events at the site but that sporting events might be shown on a big screen, the Legal Advisor confirmed that events being shown on television did not require a licence so long as it was streamed live.

 

In response to concern expressed by PC Hill that the site could be used for live music events, should the licensing application be granted, Mr Sutton said that this would not be possible as it would breach the lease of the site, which was owned by the Homes England.

 

PC Hill asked why the proposed Operating Schedule had not specified that drive-in cinema and markets were the type of events being considered. Mr Sutton said that he had been advised that he should apply for all licensable activity that might be needed for the site and that the application would be quickest method of securing a premises licence. The licensable activities applied for mirrored those of the existing premises licence for Dockside Shopping Centre and an alcohol licence had been sought as, for example, alcohol could be served at a sit-down movie event. Mr Sutton reiterated that he had no interest in holding the type of higher risk events at the site which would be of concern to the Police but that the layout of the licensing form had not enabled him to provide the level of detail being requested by the Police. If required, Mr Sutton said he would be happy to amend the proposed conditions or to resubmit application.

 

The long term plan for the site remained to turn it into a multi-million pound leisure experience to include climbing and associated activities but that it was currently not possible to progress this in view of COVID-19 and not yet having an operator in place to run a test event.

 

PC Hill asked about arrangements such as security and staffing for any seated cinema event to take place at the site. Mr Sutton said that for the proposed pantomime, the operator would have provided event marshals at a ratio of 1:50. There would have been two SIA trained security staff in attendance with a maximum of 50 cars. An Event Management Plan would be submitted 10 working days in advance of events to demonstrate how the licensing objectives would be met. Arrangements would differ for drive in events. There were no plans to cover the existing structure at the site.

 

PC Hill said that he could not see where in the application and operating schedule it had been detailed that an events plan would be produced ahead of each event and agreed with responsible authorities or where it had been specified that an event security plan would be produced. Mr Sutton said that he could amend the application to cover these points and add conditions as required. He reiterated that the time available to work on the application had been minimal as it had needed to be submitted well in advance of the proposed drive-in pantomime. He confirmed that plans would be produced for all events and shared as required.

 

The Chairman invited the other objectors to question the applicant.

 

Ms Canelo was concerned about the impact of events on nearby residential properties, particularly as events could take place late into the evening. She questioned whether there would be any benefit to the local community and was also concerned that events would make existing traffic and parking problems in the area worse.

 

Mr Richardson said that his apartment overlooked the premises, being less than 200 metres from it and that there were no measures proposed to stop him seeing the stage, cars attending and the screen. He also asked where the premises would be accessed from and how noise emitted from events would be mitigated. He also felt that the licence being applied for was not specific enough.

 

Mr Sutton advised of the access arrangements and said that they would vary depending on the type of event. Traffic from the site would be travelling away from residential properties at all times. He also advised that Dock Head Road was a private road that was supposed to be shut to through traffic and operation of this was not within his control. Mr Sutton said that he would be happy to amend the application and add conditions to clarify the proposed uses of the site.

 

In relation to noise mitigation, the sounding of car horns or running of engines would not be permitted during events. Attendees would be notified of the terms and conditions in advance and anyone who did not adhere to the conditions would be warned and asked to leave if necessary. The site was not fully enclosed and it would be possible to remove a single car should the need arise. It was expected that attendees would generally comply with the terms and conditions and instructions given by event stewards. While it was not possible to prevent all noise made by people attending events, Mr Sutton said that events would be required to end by 9:30pm at the latest with the site being quiet by 10pm.

 

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Sutton said that planning permission for the climbing centre had been granted in March 2019 and that plans had been progressing by March 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic has started. There had been a delay prior to March 2020 due to problems with the structure of the floor at the site. Mr Sutton felt that only being able to host drive-in and market events at the site would be too restrictive but that if that it would be acceptable if this could be broadened to permit markets, drive in or sit-down cinema, outdoor theatre and performances of a similar nature.

 

Mr Sutton hoped that progress could be made on developing the climbing centre in 2022 with a view to it opening in 2023. The events that he would plan to host at the site during 2021 would not be designed to make money but to provide something that would add value to the area.

 

Mr Sutton was planning for events to take place at the site up until October 2021 and would then consider running a pantomime. Events at the site would cease once the climbing centre was under development. Events held would be appropriately socially distanced. The existing Structure at the site was not covered and there were no plans to change it. Regular safety checks would be undertaken.

 

A Member asked what the relationship was between the firms MS8 and WD and what restrictions were imposed on the site by Homes England. It was also asked how many events would take place at the site over the next year. In response, Mr Sutton said that WD owned the Machine Shop and Dockside Outlet and that MS8 had been created by this company. The lease on sites at the Dockside from Homes England was for 150 years with ownership transferring to Chatham Maritime Trust once a site had been developed.

 

In order to undertake any new activity at the site, the relevant licensing and planning permissions would have to be first obtained ahead of Homes England permission being sought. A change of use e.g. for residential or to run a circus would not be permitted without these permissions being obtained. Homes England were supportive of the current proposals. It was envisaged that there would be a run of events in a 10 to 14 day block with a gap of a few weeks between events.

 

In response to further questions from Panel Members, Mr Sutton said that the screen near Dickens World could not be used for events as it had been removed 12 months previously due to it having been unsafe. He said that he had worked at Chatham Dockside for 16 years and was not looking to do anything that could be detrimental to the area and that when restrictions permitted, he would be looking to develop the climbing centre.

 

The Chairman invited all parties to sum up their respective cases. PC Hill said that Kent Police were opposing the granting of the licence. It was not considered that the application submitted provided sufficient detail of proposed activity at the site and although the Police would not necessarily be opposed to the hosting of events deemed to be low risk at the site, the type of events that could be held would not be sufficiently restricted if the licence were granted as applied for by the applicant.

 

Section 182 Guidance within the Licensing Act specified that applications for premises licences were expected to provide licensing authorities with sufficient information to determine the extent to which the proposed steps are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives in the local area. This had not been covered by the application.

 

The Council Statement of Licensing Policy stated that ‘the authority recommends that applicants complete a risk assessment of their business in order to understand what steps are required to be taken to complete the operating schedule in a manor that enables the Council, responsible authorities and other persons to assess how they will seek to promote the licensing objectives in this area.’ This had also not been covered within the application. Kent Police would have expected to see full details included in the application in relation to, for example, use of CCTV, provision of staff training, whether there would be a personal licence holder on site, whether a refusals register would be kept, details of the type of drinking vessels to be used and details of security plans and risk assessments to be undertaken ahead of each event.

 

Mr Richardson added that his sleep could be disturbed by events taking place at the site and by any flashing lights. He also said that shift workers could be disturbed.

 

Ms Canelo said that existing activities in the area made it difficult to sleep and that the proposals would create extra noise. She was concerned about people remaining in the area after events had finished and about the likelihood of increased litter. She did not consider that the proposals would benefit the local community.

 

Mr Sutton said that he had tried to have conversations with the Police and Licensing before Christmas 2020 to see if proposed conditions could be agreed but there had not being time for any such conditions to be agreed.

 

Decision:

 

1.      The Panel considered all the written evidence before it and had listened carefully to all the oral evidence presented by the applicant by the objectors, including Kent Police and two local residents and unanimously decided to adjourn the hearing to allow the Applicant time to consider amending his application in the light of the clarifications which emerged during the hearing and to allow for further consultation with Kent Police.

 

2.      The Panel requested that the applicant consider amending and resubmitting his application to:

 

i)               Include the additional information, as discussed during the Panel Hearing, provision of which the Panel considered would assist it in determining whether granting of the licence would be likely to result in the licencing objectives being met.

 

ii)              Remove from the proposed Operating Schedule any activities that the applicant does not wish to undertake at the premises and any activities for which a premises licence is not required.

 

3.      The Panel further requested that the applicant resubmit his application no later than 14 days before the reconvened hearing, the date of which will be provided in due course.