The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park. Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman outlined the Fire Evacuation Procedures.

The Committee and Officers present were asked to introduce themselves, and the procedure that would be followed was outlined.

A change to the membership was announced and the membership of this Sub-Committee was as follows:

Councillors Roger Clark (Chairman), Paul Fleming and Prescott.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for  themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

(c)          Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the room while that item is considered.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7:

Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with prevention investigation or prosecution of crime.

It was not necessary to pass this resolution.

To consider a review of the Premises Licence for Talk of the Town, The Promenade, Leysdown on Sea, Kent ME12 4QB.

Report to follow.

Report and Appendices added 2 May 2017.

Mr Mohammad Bauluck, the Licensing Officer, introduced the report which considered the application for a summary review of Talk of the Town, The Promenade, Leysdown by Kent Police, both full review and to review the interim steps taken at the informal meeting of members of the Sub-Committee, the Respondents and Kent Police on 13 April 2017. The Licensing Officer drew attention to Appendix five of the report which set out the interim steps.

PC Chris Hill, representing Kent Police, gave an outline of the events at the Talk of the Town on 8 April 2017 and stressed that it was a serious incident, and part of an ongoing Police investigation.  He advised that there had been four incidents at the premises within the last calendar year, involving fourteen recorded crimes and that Kent Police do monitor the premises.  He added that whilst the number of incidents had been relatively small, the severity of the incidents had escalated and that the premises could be managed more safely with the conditions proposed by Kent Police and agreed with the Licence Holder.

The Solicitor Team Leader (Contentious) clarified that there were variations in the conditions imposed at the interim steps review and the suggested conditions Kent Police had now put forward.  PC Hill explained that the Talk of the Town had closed after the interim steps review as they found some of the conditions imposed were too difficult to implement and manage.  He added that it was not Kent Police’s intention to close the premises but work with the Respondents to put measures in place to reduce crime at the premises.

In response to a Member’s question, PC Hill advised that it was proposed that door security would be provided at the premises from 1900hrs,  for live entertainment provided by the premises, excluding Karaoke.

In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr Prime, the Respondent, confirmed that the premises had been shut since the review as the interim steps could not be implemented at such short notice.

The Respondent explained why the CCTV had not been in operation on the night of the incident, advised that the premises mostly attracted regular customers and families without incident and highlighted the need for more Police patrols in the area.  He went on to explain that staff at the premises would monitor the distribution of pool cues to customers and charge a deposit of £2 to ensure their return.

In summarising, PC Hill explained that the proposed conditions aimed to prevent and reduce the risk of serious incidents at the premises.

The Solicitor Team Leader (Contentious) explained the procedure for considering the full review and the interim steps, and Members of the Sub-Committee, Kent Police and the Respondent all agreed that both should be considered on the basis of the same evidence and in one retirement, unless Members were minded not to follow conditions agreed when there would be an opportunity to comment further.  The Solicitor Team Leader (Contentious) sought clarification on how the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1312.