Agenda item

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 provide a breakdown of violent crimes and disorder and was not up to date. The agent explained he did not have the figures, but the broader point was that the email showed how the premises had improved in the last 2 years and the Police had an opportunity to object but did not wish to do so.

In response to a question about how the changes would uphold the licensing objectives, the agent explained that the Police were comfortable with the conditions being removed and the remaining conditions were sufficient to uphold the licensing objectives.

The Panel also discussed the proposed changes to condition 27 (search policy) and condition 28 (hi visibility jackets for SIA staff outside).  The agent explained that things had moved on and all door staff wore a visible SIA badge with a reflective strip as high visibility clothing can give off the wrong impression and heighten concerns.

The Panel then decided to move into closed session to show the recording submitted by the objector as it identified individuals.

The agent explained the front doors were open in the recording as the previously mentioned lady in a wheelchair was sitting just inside the doors around the corner. The Panel queried why the fire door was open and were informed that this door provided access to the glass washroom and would only be open if staff were collecting glasses.

Laura Caiels queried condition 29 as there was no visible difference in the variation. The agent confirmed this was an error and no variation was proposed to condition 29.

In summing up, the agent explained that markable improvements had been made in recent years, and no objections had been received from the Police or Environmental Health. It was accepted that the doors were open in the recording shown and the reasons for this had been explained. The Panel were invited to amend condition 17 as suggested to safeguard local residents.

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.

When delivering their decision, the Panel initially decided that condition 33 should remain in place as there were concerns regarding glass causing a danger to staff or the public. The agent challenged this as it had not been discussed or questioned in the hearing, there had not been any problems with glass during busy events and there was nothing to merit the ongoing imposition of the condition. The DPS explained that use of plastic vessels after 22:00 resulted in the loss of customers to nearby premises where glass is used and was a threat to the business.

Following legal advice and reconsideration of the decision regarding condition 33 based on the information provided the Panel amended their decision for condition 33 as set out in the decision.

Decision:

The Panel heard from the parties present, read the objections and viewed the recording provided.

The Panel was mindful that no representations had been made by any responsible authorities objecting to the proposed variation. Kent Police had provided a supporting email to the applicant, which the Panel considered but found it was not completely helpful as the dates provided were not clear.

Having considered all of the evidence the Committee decided the following:

Condition 17 to be amended to the following:

“The rear garden area of the premises to be cleared of all customers by 23:00 every day”

Conditions 19, 20, 23, 28 and 32 to be removed as requested in the application

Condition 27 to be amended as proposed in the application

Condition 31 to be amended as proposed in the application with the addition of Fridays to Saturdays and Sundays

Condition 33 to be amended to state that the use of poly carbonate plastics after 23:00 shall be risk assessed, and a copy of the risk assessment would be kept on the premises and available for inspection by Licensing Officers and the Police.