Agenda item

To consider a full variation premises application for the Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

 

Discussion:

 

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda and noted that the applicant had received a copy of the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager informed the Panel that on 18 June 2026 the applicant had applied for a full variation of the premises licence for the Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham, ME7 3JR. The application sought to extend the hours for the sale of alcohol and regulated entertainment hours until 00:00 on Sunday to Wednesday and until 01:00 on Thursday to Saturday. It also sought to extend the hours for late night refreshments from 23:00 to 01:00 on Thursday to Saturday and to add late night refreshments 23:00 to 00:00 on Sunday to Wednesday. The variation also included the use of an outdoor bar.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager confirmed that conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards and Kent Police. Seven video clips had been submitted by the objectors, however, owing to compatibility issues, only three of the clips could be viewed during the hearing.

 

The Assistant Licensing Manager confirmed that all responsible authorities had been consulted in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and that representations had been received from members of the public.

 

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

 

Mr Piers Warne, Legal Director from TLT, representing Punch Taverns Limited and the applicant informed the Panel that the application comprised two elements. The first sought to amend the plans to include an outside bar and to incorporate the five conditions set out on page 8 of the agenda. The second sought to extend the licensed hours throughout the week by one hour, with an additional one and a half hrs on Sundays.

 

Mr Warne advised that, following submission of the application, the applicant had amended the proposal and no longer sought extended hours for regulated entertainment. The hours for regulated entertainment would, therefore, remain unchanged at 23:00 from Monday to Wednesday and 00:00 from Thursday to Saturday. On Sundays, it was proposed that the hours for regulated entertainment would be extended from 22:30 to 23:00.

 

Mr Warne acknowledged the objections raised by local residents and advised that a dedicated telephone number would be made available to enable local residents to contact the premises directly should any urgent issues arise.

 

Mr Warne confirmed that conditions had been agreed with Trading Standards and Kent Police and, consequently, neither authority had submitted further objections to the application or were in attendance at the hearing. He referred the Panel to the conditions agreed with Trading Standards, set out on page 39 of the agenda, and those agreed with Kent Police, set out on pages 41-45.  He further advised that additional conditions had been agreed with Kent Police following an incident during the football World Cup, as detailed on page 41 of the agenda.

 

Mr Warne advised the Panel that the Cricketers had been a public house for many years. He explained that Mr Simon Mycock, the Designated Premises Supervisor, had taken over the premises in February 2026 and that £50,000 had been invested in the business. Mr Mycock wished to establish the public house as a community hub and had introduced bingo and charity nights. 

 

Mr Warne acknowledged that the World Cup period had presented challenges, including high temperatures, extended trading hours, delays to match kick-off times and changes to opening and closing arrangements. He advised that Mr Mycock had worked closely with Kent Police and that, following agreement of additional conditions, no further representation had been made by the police. 

 

Mr Warne further advised that Mr Mycock had applied for Temporary Event Notices (TEN’s) which permitted the premises to extend its trading hours during the World Cup.

 

Mr Warne and Mr Mycock recognised that the trust between the public house and local residents had been damaged and stated that Mr Mycock was keen to rebuild it. Mr Mycock advised that measures were being introduced, which included increased supervision of the garden area, and that steps were being taken to address issues arising when customers left the premises at closing time.

 

Mr Mycock apologised to the local residents for the issues experienced during the World Cup. He stated that changes were being implemented to reduce the impact on the local area and that steps were being taken to engage with local residents to address their concerns. 

 

The Chairperson asked the objectors if they had questions for the applicant and the objectors acknowledged the comments regarding the World Cup and also that there had been no significant issues associated with the premises over the previous 20 years. However, objectors expressed concerns regarding the volume of music emanating from the premises and the lateness of that noise, which they considered showed a lack of consideration for local residents. Mr Warne confirmed that live music in the garden would cease at 23:00.

 

Mr Warne confirmed that Temporary Event Notices (TEN’s) had been submitted to Licensing, Kent Police and the Council’s Environmental Protection Team to permit extended trading hours during the World Cup. No objections had been received from either authority. 

 

The objectors confirmed that noise issues were not confined to the World Cup period and stated that noise from the premises had continued after the tournament had ended. In response, Mr Warne explained that surveys had been commissioned and that the location and height of speakers were being reviewed. He advised that the new sound system would allow speakers to be zoned and directed more effectively, reducing noise breakout from the garden area.  

 

Mr Mycock advised that the garden had previously been in a poor state of repair and that landscaping improvements were planned. He explained that bushes and trees had been removed due to safety concerns and that replacement planting would take place once weather conditions became more suitable, which was anticipated to be during September 2026. 

 

Mr Mycock advised that some noise in the area could also be attributed to other nearby premises. He reiterated that a dedicated telephone number would be available to local residents to enable concerns to be raised directly with the premises.

 

In relation to customer dispersal, Mr Mycock explained that measures were being considered to reduce congestion when customers left the premises. He stated that the proposed extension of licensed hours would enable customers to leave more gradually, reducing pressure at closing time.

 

Mr Warne confirmed that the non-standard timings sought for Christmas Eve would only apply where appropriate and would not automatically extend trading hours beyond those applied for.

 

In response to questions regarding live entertainment, Mr Warne confirmed that regulated entertainment would only take place indoors after 23:00.  Background music could continue to be played externally.

 

Objectors expressed concern that noise from the premises had, on occasions, required them to keep their windows closed. Mr Mycock advised that, during the recent heatwave, doors and windows had remained open due to high temperatures. He informed the Panel that enquiries were being made regarding the installation of air conditioning and confirmed that, in the meantime, staff would monitor the premises to ensure doors and windows remained closed wherever possible.

 

Mr Mycock further advised that closing the garden area entirely after 23:00 could result in additional complaints, as smokers would be required to congregate at the front of the premises. Mr Warne, therefore, requested that a condition be imposed that garden hours should not be restricted from what they currently were so proposed closing for the additional hour applied for, except to smokers.

 

In response to concerns regarding the premises' proximity to Gillingham Football Club, Mr Mycock explained that he had taken over the premises towards the end of the football season and that remaining fixtures had been limited. He confirmed that the premises catered only for home supporters and that this was actively monitored through staff knowledge of the customer base and checks of match tickets where necessary. He added that close liaison had taken place with Kent Police and that these arrangements had worked effectively.

 

When asked what lessons had been learned, Mr Mycock stated that improved communication with local residents was essential. He advised that further work was being undertaken to improve customer dispersal arrangements and that engagement with Kent Police and other agencies would continue. He reiterated his view that extended licensed hours would assist in staggering customers' departures and reducing congestion at closing time. He added that ongoing engagement with the emergency services would remain an important part of managing the premises.

 

The Panel questioned the applicant and Mr Warne confirmed that the Fire Risk Assessment permitted a maximum capacity of 250 customers inside the premises and 200 customers in the external area.

 

The Panel asked whether soundproofing measures could be considered to help alleviate noise disturbance to neighbouring properties. In response, Mr Warne advised that the garden hours should not be restricted from what they currently were, so proposed closing for the additional hour applied for, except to smokers.

 

The Panel emphasised the importance of maintaining effective communication with local residents and encouraged ongoing engagement with those affected by the operation of the premises.

 

In response to questions, Mr Mycock confirmed that records were maintained of refused sales, incidents of serious crime and disorder, and interactions with the emergency services. He also advised that improvements had been made to the CCTV system, including the installation of additional cameras covering the garden area. Any incidents arising at the premises were reported to the company's operations team.

 

The Panel asked about the landscaping proposals and whether these would assist in mitigating noise. Mr Mycock explained that certain bushes and trees had been removed as part of the site's maintenance programme. He advised that a large tree had required removal after a substantial branch had broken. Replacement planting and further landscaping works were proposed and could provide additional screening and help to reduce noise transmission.

 

In response to a question regarding noise monitoring, Mr Mycock confirmed that he had access to a decibel meter.

 

Mr Mycock advised that he intended to improve communication with neighbouring residents and considered that direct contact and messaging arrangements would assist in addressing concerns at an early stage.

 

When asked what lessons had been learned from recent events, Mr Mycock referred to the unique circumstances presented by the World Cup and the concurrent heatwave. He stated that demand had been significantly higher than anticipated and had attracted a wider range of customers. He acknowledged that additional staffing and enhanced crowd management measures would have been beneficial and accepted that greater consideration should have been given to the impact on neighbouring residents.

 

The objectors were invited to address the Panel and set out their concerns regarding the application. They stated that there had been considerable noise emanating from the premises, including loud music being played late into the evening and early hours of the morning. Concerns were also raised regarding noise associated with customers leaving the premises, including the slamming of vehicle doors.

 

The objectors advised that they had witnessed incidents of behaviour which they considered unsatisfactory and stated that they had felt uncomfortable approaching individuals involved. They expressed concern that the proposed extension of licensed hours would result in an increase in the amount of time available for the consumption of alcohol.

 

The objectors confirmed that their representations principally related to the licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance and public safety.

 

The objectors stated that noise from the premises had, on occasions, continued until 03:00 or 04:00 and considered that there had been insufficient regard for the impact of this disturbance on neighbouring residents.

 

While maintaining their objections to the application, the objectors acknowledged the steps that had been proposed by the applicant to address residents' concerns and welcomed the provision of a dedicated telephone number to enable issues to be reported directly to the premises.

 

The Panel then viewed and listened to three video recordings submitted by the objectors in support of their representations.

 

The applicant and his representative were given the opportunity to ask questions of the objectors. Mr Warne thanked the objectors for their representations but advised that they had no questions for them.

 

The Panel then asked questions and suggested that regular meetings between Mr Mycock and the local residents could provide an opportunity to discuss and address any concerns arising from the operation of the premises.

 

In response to a question from the Panel regarding one of the video recordings, an objector confirmed that the date stamp displayed on the footage was incorrect. It was explained that the discrepancy had arisen during the process of compressing the video files, which had altered the recorded date and time information. 

 

The Panel asked whether, during any of the incidents referred to in their representations, the objector had contacted Mr Mycock or members of his staff at the premises. The objector confirmed that they had not done so.

In summing up, the objectors clarified that they did not feel the extra hours were suitable as it was a highly residential area, however, they acknowledged that the applicant had listened to their concerns and welcomed the measures that had been proposed to address them. 

 

In summing up, Mr Warne acknowledged that aspects of the operation of the premises could have been managed more effectively and apologised for the issues that had arisen. He stated that Mr Mycock was a proactive premises operator who had made significant improvement since taking over the business. 

 

Mr Warne reminded the Panel that the application comprised of two elements: the inclusion of an outdoor bar within the licensed area and an extension to the hours for the sale of alcohol. He clarified that the proposed variation related only to the sale of alcohol, within an extension of one hour on most days and one and a half hours on Sundays. He confirmed that the hours for regulated entertainment would remain as provided for under the current premises licence.

 

Mr Warne advised that a dedicated telephone number would be provided to local residents to enable any concerns to be raised directly with the premises at the time they occurred.  

 

Mr Warne proposed an additional condition requiring quarterly meetings between Mr Mycock and local residents. He explained that the meetings would be advertised locally and through social media channels and would provide an opportunity to discuss any concerns relating to the operation of the premises. 

 

Mr Warne acknowledged that communication between the premises and local residents had broken down but stated that Mr Mycock was committed to rebuilding those relationships and improving engagement with the local community.

 

Mr Warne concluded by expressing the hope that the measures proposed by the applicant would mark the beginning of a more proactive approach. He referred to the proposed installation of the directional speakers and the commitment that live entertainment outside would cease at 23:00 as examples of the steps being taken to address residents’ concerns.

 

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 had considered the application for a full variation of the premises licence at the Cricketers, Sturdee Avenue, Gillingham, together with the operating schedule, the officer report and appendices, the supplementary information provided on behalf of the applicant, and all written and oral representations insofar as they were relevant to the determination of the application.

 

In reaching its decision, the Panel had had regard to the Law including the Licensing Act 2003, the applicable case law, the statutory guidance issued under section 182, the National Licensing Policy Framework, Medway Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the four licensing objectives.

 

The Panel had determined this variation application on its own individual facts and on the evidence placed before it.

 

The Panel had considered all of the concerns raised by local residents with care. The Panel accepted that the representations raised matters capable of engaging the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance, and to a lesser extent the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm. However, the Panel had considered only those matters relevant to the licensing objectives and had placed no weight on matters falling outside the licensing regime. The Panel had also placed limited weight on assertions that were not supported by sufficient evidence.

 

The Panel had attached significant weight to the fact that no Responsible Authority maintained an objection to the application. The Panel regarded the views of the Responsible Authorities as important, given their expertise in their respective areas, and noted in particular that conditions had been agreed with Kent Police and Trading Standards to address the concerns identified during consultation. There had also notably, been no objection from Public Health in relation to noise nuisance.

 

The Panel noted that the extension of the licensable area to the external areas shown on the submitted plan were not objected to today, but the Panel had considered the written objections nevertheless. Notwithstanding those objections, the Panel was satisfied that granting that part of the application would not undermine the Licensing Objectives.

 

There was contention in relation to the extension of licensable hours and the Panel had grappled with the evidence as a whole. They accepted that the resident representations provided firsthand evidence of noise, disturbance and concerns about customer behaviour which were relevant to the licensing objectives, and had taken those concerns seriously. The Panel had carefully considered the impact of the extended hours but were persuaded that it would promote the Licensing objectives as part of a wider effective dispersal management plan. This would be subject to the restriction of use being limited to smokers only after 00:00, as outlined in the conditions below. The Panel noted and accepted the invitation to vary the application to remove the request for an extension of the current regulated entertainment hours, which would, therefore, remain as currently on the licence apart from the Sunday hours which would be increased to 23:00.

 

The Panel also noted that in the majority the underlying concerns giving rise to objection relate to exceptional World Cup circumstances, which did not only affect this local business but has had national impact. The evidence the Panel had heard, ultimately, does not justify in our mind the conclusion that the application, if granted subject to the proposed conditions, would be likely to undermine the licensing objectives.

 

The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the conditions offered in the operating schedule, together with the additional conditions agreed with Kent Police and Trading Standards and the further measures set out in the supplementary information, combined with the conditions set out below, were appropriate, reasonable, proportionate and enforceable in the circumstances of this particular case and were capable of promoting the licensing objectives. Those specific conditions added by the Panel were:

 

A.         The Premises shall maintain a permanent telephone number which shall be available during operational hours and which shall be regularly publicly advertised for the purposes of facilitating communication with local residents and patrons.

B.         The external garden area, including any external bar servery, shall not be used for the sale or consumption of alcohol or for any licensable activities after 00:00 on any day. After 00:00 the garden shall only be used as a smoking area.

C.         The Premises will arrange, advertise and facilitate a quarterly meeting to allow residents and other concerns persons an opportunity to communicate with the Premises.

D.         The Premises must ensure that all doors and windows were closed after 23:00 hours on any day, save in respect of external doors solely for the access and egress of the building.

 

Accordingly, the Panel grants the variation in the terms outlined.