notification of chairman and outline of procedure

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and Officers present. He highlighted an error on the Agenda, confirming that it was himself, Councillor Alan Willicombe and not Councillor Bobbin who would be taking part in the meeting. He explained that the Sub-Committee would consider a review of the Premises Licence for The Goat Public House, High Street, Sheerness and detailed the procedure that would be followed.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

review of premises licence under the licensing act 2003 - the goat public house, high street, sheerness

Mr Spreadbury (Police Licensing Officer) outlined representations made by the Police, highlighting the 'detailed grounds' section and the alleged incidents listed. He also confirmed that the Police were not seeking to revoke Mrs Hawes' Personal Licence. Sergeant Neil Kimber confirmed the information that he had included in his statement of 18th August 2006.

In reference to incidents listed with regard to other local premises, the Sub-Committee stated that these would not be taken into consideration as they did not involve the premises, or Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) under review.

Mr Webster, agent for Mrs Hawes, the DPS, considered that of the six incidents listed in the representations, only one had happened on the premises of The Goat and were under the control of the DPS. With regard to that incident of 15th June 2006 when the football World Cup games were being shown at the premises, Mr Webster asked if any arrests had been made. Sergeant Kimber confirmed that none had been made as it was felt at the time that the incident could have escalated following an arrest, due to the DPS' popularity amongst her customers and the local community. Mr Webster confirmed that the DPS regretted her actions on that day and drew the Committee's attention to the statement from Ms Lorton, who the DPS had acted against. Ms Lorton had stated that, through her own aggressive behaviour, she had given the DPS no option but to remove her from the premises.

Mr Webster considered that there were many inconsistencies in the representations submitted by the Police, that the time of several incidents occurred when the DPS was off duty and the premises closed and that the premises did not employ door staff. He informed the Sub-Committee that the DPS was suffering from post traumatic stress, following her involvement in trying to save the life of a stab victim during April 2006 outside of the premises. He highlighted the petition of support for Mrs Hawes that 380 local residents had submitted, the 12 letters of support received from local businesses and the DPS' involvement in the night time economy committee.

In response to Members' questions the following responses were given.

Mr Spreadbury explained that the difference between intoxication and drunkenness was a grey area as a person could be able to drink a high quantity of alcohol, but still appear sober.

Mr Spreadbury could not confirm how many incidents had occurred inside The Goat Public House prior to June 2006, though confirmed that the DPS had not previously been cautioned or charged in relation to her behaviour in the 25 years that she had held a Personal Licence.

Mr Holland, of TSH Holdings who owned the premises, confirmed that he had been given no reason to question the DPS' conduct, prior to these allegations.

The Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 10.55 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Senior Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 11.12 am, when the Sub-Committee re-convened.

The Chairman informed Mrs Hawes that the Sub-Committee were disappointed in some of her alleged actions, but understood the personal stresses that she had been under. However, they considered that she must learn to control her actions better. The Sub-Committee were reluctant to remove the Premises Licence due to the evidence that had been produced and considered that a stronger case could have been made by the Police. They felt sure that the Police would continue to monitor the premises and that any further incidents could result in the premises being taken back to the Sub-Committee for review.