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 consider a review of the Premises Licence for The Ivy Leaf, Sheerness.

Counsel for the Licence Holder made an application to adjourn the hearing on the basis that he had received a large bundle of papers from Kent Police which amounted to some 20 documents referring to 12 incidents.  PC Hunt indicated that he intended to rely on two or three of these documents, with the rest as background. Counsel was not sure which incidents and what it was alleged they demonstrated. CCTV had just been played to him that morning and there were 8 cameras for over 4 hours. If both parties referred to CCTV and all the incidents, the hearing would not finish that day. He sought a summary of what would be relied upon to narrow the facts being disputed. This would assist the decision process and hopefully prevent a part-heard hearing.  It would be appropriate to adjourn to a date as soon as possible with enough time for the evidence.

The Police applicant for the review stated that reluctantly they did not oppose an adjournment to attempt to narrow facts, and have the matter heard on one occasion. However, they made it clear that all the evidence had been provided in time. A precis was sent three to four weeks ago and redacted reports had been sent last week.  He felt that the request for a summary should have been made last week, not that morning.  The Police felt that this could have been avoided and suggested the adjourned date be as soon as possible, as they had concerns with the premises remaining open, and not promoting the licensing objectives. .

Members decided to agree a short adjournment and a date of 23 August 2017 at 10am was agreed, with the possibility of determination going over to the evening or the next morning if necessary.

Resolved:  That the meeting be adjourned until 10am on 23 August 2017.