declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

notification of chairman and outline of procedure

The Chairman opened the meeting by introducing the Sub-Committee and the Officers present. He then outlined the procedure that would be followed.

part b minutes for information

application for a new premises licence under the licensing act 2003 – 20 east street, sittingbourne

Mr Celik, owner of 20 East Street, raised concern that his English was not good and he had not realised it would be such a formal meeting otherwise he would have brought his solicitor. The Chairman asked Mr Celik if he wished the meeting to be deferred but Mr Celik advised he was happy to continue.

Mr Celik stated that the application was for provision of late night refreshments.

Mr John Burke, representing residents and commercial occupiers of premises in East Street, advised that local residents were concerned that extension of the existing times would increase anti-social behaviour, which was already a problem in the location. Residents were also concerned that the shop entrance was not cleaned or cleared of rubbish by the applicant and Mr Burke requested a bin be located outside the premises by the applicant. He also queried where the rubbish from the premises was being taken. Mr Burke reported that the applicant had shown no consideration towards residents and other commercial premises occupiers in respect of recent late night building works. He also claimed the applicant already remained open until 24:00 hours. Mr Burke considered the applicant was unaware of the distinction between licensing permission and planning permission.

The Senior Solicitor advised that the Licensing Sub-Committee could not have regard to planning issues, and that the applicant had been made aware of the need to obtain planning permission.

Mr Page, Licensee of The Ship Inn Public House, East Street, considered the application would increase public disorder in East Street. He advised that customers to takeaways in East Street were mainly young people and fights, screaming and shouting occurred until the early hours of the morning. This occasionally led to structural damage to establishments in East Street. He requested that the opening hours be restricted to 24:00 hours.

Mrs Horden, representing the residents of Riverbourne Court, advised that their main concern was vermin, which they considered was a direct result of the applicant not disposing of his rubbish properly. They were also concerned that as there was no seating being provided at the rear of 20 East Street, customers would be inclined to use the seating area outside Riverbourne Court.

The applicant confirmed that he was currently experiencing problems disposing of his rubbish but was hopeful that this would soon be resolved. He also drew attention to the fact that there were other pubs, restaurants and take-aways in East Street, and felt it unfair to claim that his establishment was the cause of anti-social behaviour in the area.

The Chairman asked the applicant whether he accepted the Police conditions imposed. The applicant advised that he would do his best to comply with the Police conditions.

The Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 10:30 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and the Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 10:45 am, when the Sub-Committee re-convened.

The Chairman reminded the applicant that the License would not come into effect until he had gained planning permission.

The Chairman advised local objectors that they could request a review of the licence if they considered it was not being adhered to.

In respect of installation of a litter bin outside the property, discussions ensued, and the applicant agreed to install a litter bin in the recessed area outside his frontage.

application to vary premises licence under the licensing act 2003 – layzells tavern club, broadway, minster, isle of sheppey

Mr Layzell, the Applicant, presented his case. He explained that there was some confusion in respect of the adult entertainment use requested, largely caused by inaccurate press coverage. He explained that the facilities for dancing would include entertainment of an adult nature. Layzells was used as a venue for hen and stagg parties, and strippers were often requested as part of the entertainment. He confirmed however, that there were no plans for ‘exotic’ dancers on a regular basis. With regard to the application for a burger van on the car park, Mr Layzell explained that this had been requested by customers and would be situated in the first parking bay in front of the entrance of the Club, where it could be monitored by door staff. He confirmed that only customers would have access to the burger van.

Mr Salter, from the Minster Park Residents’ Association raised concern that the applicant had not written to local residents informing them of his plans.

Ms Thompson, Minster Park Residents Association, explained that most residents of Minster Park understood the applicant had a business to run but were concerned that excessive noise from the club was becoming a problem for local residents and felt complaints to the applicants were being ignored. Residents were also opposed to the provision of a burger van, which they felt would cause litter and odour problems. Ms Thompson stated a further objection to the burger van was that half the car park was designated to local residents and if the club was busy they were unable to park.

In response to a query, the applicant explained that they considered the burger van would be the easiest option, as their current kitchen facilities were unsuitable and due to financial constraints they were unable to improve facilities. A further issue if food was prepared inside would be re-siting of the bins.

In response to a query from a Member the applicant confirmed all Police conditions would be adhered to and most requests were already in place.

Mrs Rendor, a local resident, complained that she was regularly disturbed in the early hours of the morning by music emanating from Layzells, and requested a noise limiter be introduced to help solve the problem.

The Licensing Officer reported that unfortunately when the premises had its public entertainment inspection it was deemed unsuitable for a noise limiter to be installed. She explained that this was due to the height of the ceilings and the positioning of the rooms, which she had been advised would not allow the limiter to give adequate readings.

The Chairman drew attention to the condition recommended by Environmental Services requesting that doors and windows remain closed when regulated entertainment was taking place.

The Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 11:20 am. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 11:44 am, when the Sub-Committee reconvened.

The Chairman reported that both the application for a burger van and the proposed alteration to the condition relating to children on the premises were refused.

The Chairman advised that the condition requested by Environmental Services in respect of closure of all doors and windows was not part of the existing licence. He requested that if the applicant was in agreement this be amended to cover the existing licence. The applicant raised no objection to this.

Members also recommended the installation of automated closing devices on the rear fire doors, which the applicant agreed to install.

Members also suggested communication between the Club and local residents be improved.