Agenda item

To consider a full variation application for the Premises Licence at Kings Head Hotel, 58 High Street, Rochester following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson asked those present to introduce themselves.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a full variation of the Premises Licence at Kings Head Hotel, 58 High Street, Rochester. 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.

The application was to add an additional hour to the closing time for the current licensable activities (sale by retail of alcohol, live music, recorded music, dancing, films and indoor sporting events and late night refreshment).

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

The applicant’s agent explained that the application was to extend the existing hours by 1 hour. The Panel were informed that the applicant needed to make the application as at present the premises was only open on Fridays and Saturdays due to a lack of trade and they needed to encourage more customers to visit and hopefully be able to open in the week.

The agent informed the Panel that the licensed premises next door closed at 12.30am which caused their customers to wait outside the Kings Head Hotel until it closed at 01:00am and impacted on the Kings Head Hotel and caused congestion.

The Panel were informed that the hours were being applied for until 02:00am to allow the premises to close slowly and to resolve the issue with congestion outside the premises. The agent explained that the premises had been staying open until 02:00am in Autum 2025 under Temporary Event Notices and there had not been any complaints, objections or issues caused by the later opening hours. The applicant explained that they attended monthly meetings with Kent Police and there had not been any objections to the application from the police or fire service.

As the objector, Mr Webb then questioned the applicant.

In response to a query about how the business will operate, the agent explained that the extension would provide an extra hour of trade and solve the problem with the congestion outside the premises. The agent explained that there had not been any objections from the police and that the extra hour had not caused any problems when it had been in place during the autumn.

Mr Webb queried the admissions policy for the premises and was informed that the door staff were experienced and were strict as to who was allowed entry with a dress code in place in the evenings. The Panel were informed that the staff would not serve anyone that was intoxicated and security staff had a good view of the whole venue to enable them to prevent any issues before they arose.

In response to a query about linking up with other venues in the High Street the Panel were informed that there were monthly meetings and radios so that the premises would communicate with other venues.

Mr Webb asked for further information regarding a media report about a violent unprovoked attack at the premises on 21 December 2025. The Applicant explained that a member of the public who was not intoxicated, had head butted someone and was immediately removed from the premises and handed over to the police who were outside.

The Panel questioned the applicant and the applicant’s understanding of the Cumulative Impact Policy was queried. The agent explained that the extension would prevent the issue of congestion with the neighbouring premises and the admissions policy would help rather than cause more problems. The agent confirmed that they were not aware of the cumulative impact policy.

The agent explained that it was not intended to allow people existing the neighbouring premises to enter, the extension was aimed to encourage existing clients to stay for longer.

As legal advisor to the Panel, Mr Rogers briefly explained the cumulative impact policy. The agent explained that the neighbouring premises was causing a cumulative impact by closing at 12.30am so to address that the applicant wanted to stay open for longer.

The Panel queried the use of the temporary event notices and were informed that the maximum 21 days had been applied for in November and December 2025. The applicant explained that the later opening had taken place on Friday and Saturday nights and had worked well with no incidents.

The Panel questioned how the extension would work, and the applicant explained that they would only let people in until 12.30am with hand stamping used from 8pm to identify who had already been in the venue.

The applicant explained that with the congestion issues outside the premises they had a choice whether to close earlier or stay open later and the better choice for the business was to retain customers for longer.

The agent informed the Panel that they would be happy to agree to a restriction on entry after 12.30am and explained that whilst the extra trade was needed the applicant was concerned about the crowd outside the premises and it was important with regards to public safety and the local community. Kent Police had been informed about the concerns with the crowding outside the premises.

The Panel queried whether the extension was being applied for all week. It was confirmed that the application was for the whole week but now the premises were only open on Friday and Saturday.

In response to a query about measures in place to address the licensing objectives, the applicant explained that all customers had identification checks, door staff had been increased from 3 to 4 and large numbers of people from one area would not be admitted however the venue was inclusive.

The Chairperson invited the objector to speak in support of their objection.

Mr Webb explained he was speaking on behalf of the City of Rochester Society with over 500 members who live close to, in or adjacent to Rochester High Street. He explained that the Society had been approached by some individual members and residents and businesses expressing concern about the application.

Mr Webb informed the Panel that the reasons for objecting to the application were set out in appendix C and highlighted the main concerns with the risk of alcohol related crime, public nuisance and public safety. He explained that Home Office and Medway guidance was that applications for full licence variations in a cumulative impact area would normally be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the premises can demonstrate it will not add to difficulties in the area and will not have an adverse impact on the licensing objectives.

For these reasons set out in appendix C, the City of Rochester Society requested that the application be refused.

The applicant queried whether the Society had advised people to object if they had concerns and were advised that they had been advised to object but had chosen not to as people are sometimes loathe to have their name in public.

The Panel did not have any questions for Mr Webb.

In summing up the agent reiterated their opening remarks about the need to extend trading hours and to address the problem outside the premises and confirmed that they were happy to add a restriction on entry after 12.30am. The applicant mentioned not wanting to turn away local residents or bar staff from other venues after work and suggested a restriction on entry from 01:00am.

In summing up Mr Webb, as the objector had nothing further to add.

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 carefully considered the evidence in this case, both the application and their written and oral submissions, and the objection, both oral and written evidence. The Panel applied the law and had regard to our policies. It was noted that there was no attendance from any Responsible authority.

The Panel determined that whilst there is impact on the licensing objectives and the cumulative impact, this could be alleviated through an amendment of the application and the addition of a condition to the premises licence.

The Panel granted an extension of the licensable hours to 2:00am for Thursday, Friday and Saturday only.

The Panel imposed a condition that there be no admission to the public or customers from 12:30am. This, in the Panel’s mind, specifically addressed the public safety issues raised in this hearing and the evidence.