election of chairman

part b minutes for information

application to vary premises licence under the licensing act 2003 – the elephant public house, the mall, faversham

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and the Officers. He explained that the Sub-Committee would consider two applications in turn and explained the procedure that would be followed. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the tabled item, a letter from the landlord of The Elephant Public House, which outlined the case in favour of the application. In response to the tabled letter, the Senior Solicitor clarified that that he had visited the premises with the Licensing Officer, and not a member of the Committee. Mr Groom-Jobey spoke in objection to the application. He emphasised that his main concern was the unacceptable noise levels generated from the premises. He explained that to ventilate the premises the door was kept open, which kept residents awake and was prejudicial to their health. He referred to item 3.27 of Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) Licensing Policy regarding the possible installation of air conditioning, which would remove the need to open windows and doors. The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 2.17 p.m. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 2.29 p.m. when the Sub-Committee reconvened. The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had given weight to all parties in reaching a decision. After advising of the Sub-Committee’s decision, the Chairman reminded those present that the application could be subject to a Section 51 Review in the future.

application to vary the premises licence under the licensing act 2003 – the prince of waterloo public house, minster road, minster on sea, sheppey

Mr Stimpson, a representative from Greene King Pub Partners, spoke on behalf of the applicants Mrs Auston and her son Mr Auston. He outlined the proposed hours and emphasised that live music was not played frequently and often consisted of jazz duos or a solo singer accompanied by a music machine. He explained that in the vicinity of The Prince of Waterloo there were a number of take away restaurants and other public houses and any disturbance and anti-social behaviour could often be attributed to these premises. He explained that Mrs Auston’s focus was on establishing a good reputation for the restaurant area, which had recently been refurbished and inspected. He also noted that the applicants had received around 12 letters of support for the application from regular customers. Mrs Jones then put forward her case in objection to the application. She explained that she had no major objections to the extension of the opening hours; her primary concern was the noise levels. The level of noise that emanated from the premises was an infringement on her rights and often disturbed her sleep, particularly when the doors were left open. In response, Mrs Auston explained that she appreciated Mrs Jones’ comments and had spent time investigating the noise levels. She noted that live music was not a regular occurrence and the premises had no permanent amplifying equipment installed. She further explained that, since a complaint from Mrs Jones, she no longer had outside music. Mr Auston advised Members that the establishment was well kept and they did not encourage a young clientele. The Prince of Waterloo had double glazed windows, a fresh air ventilation system and sound interlining curtains and blinds, which were closed when they had live music. Members examined Mrs Auston’s appointment book, which recorded the dates for future events at the Public House. Mrs Jones declined to see the appointment book. The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 2.54 p.m. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 3.06 p.m. when the Sub-Committee reconvened. The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had given weight to all parties in reaching a decision. After advising of the Sub-Committee’s decision, the Chairman reminded those present that the application could be subject to a Section 51 Review in the future.