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.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part b minutes for information

expedited review under the licensing act 2003 - merlins, 47 leysdown road, leysdown, isle of sheppey

PC Murray began by clarifying that the Certificate had been issued as the premises had been associated with both crime and disorder under Section 53A(1)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003.

PC Murray outlined the incident that had taken place at Merlin's which had been reported to the Members in a confidential report. The Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had called the Police when a fight had broken out inside the night club. PC Murray advised that the reason why the fight had started was unclear and had resulted in one person sustaining a stab wound to his neck. The incident then continued on the street and a car was driven at some of the group, with injuries to two of the group. PC Murray described the injuries that had been inflicted. She explained that the group had been heavily intoxicated, by either drink or drugs.

PC Murray reported that a certificate under Section 53A(1)(b) had been signed on 22nd April 2009 and the Police had requested interim conditions be implemented before the full review of the premises licence is heard.

PC Murray advised that a CCTV system had been installed and consequently conditions one, two and four of the interim conditions were no longer required. She explained that conditions one to twenty in the report were to be applied to full review, however, conditions one to seven, which related to CCTV, were already being complied with. PC Murray further advised that conditions 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 had been agreed with the DPS and were also being complied with. She explained that no agreement had been made with regard to the number of door supervisors that were to be employed at the premises, as the DPS had stated that seasonal variations in the amount of customers made it difficult to judge how many supervisors should be there at any one time. PC Murray advised that this matter should be considered at the full review and, in the meantime, a minimum of two door supervisors be employed on Friday and Saturdays and also on the Sunday and Monday of the May Day Bank Holiday weekend.

In response to questions, PC Murray explained that it was not certain whether the pool cue attack had been accidental, she advised that the injuries sustained were not life threatening. PC Murray confirmed that conditions eight, nine, ten, eleven and 18 remained under discussion.

In response to a question, PC Murray advised that the Police would be content to proceed with the standard review if the outstanding conditions could be agreed. She also confirmed that the group had been ejected from Merlin's that night and the fight had continued on the public highway.

Mr Thompson explained that the DPS had tried to comply with the conditions that had been set, within both time and finance constraints. Mrs Dunne explained that the condition to employ two SIA registered door supervisors on Friday and Saturday may not be required as the amount of customers present at the premises may be small. He suggested that it might be better for the DPS to use their judgement to see if the supervisors were required, rather than have them employed permanently on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr Thompson advised that Mrs Dunne had completed SIA training herself. He further advised that the premises were a family based venue and the DPS were implementing measures at the club to avoid any future incidents.

In response to questions, Mrs Dunne explained that the fight had been over in minutes and had the group had been ejected onto the street. She confirmed that the premises was not a club, but a family entertainment complex and that there had always been a SIA door supervisor present, but it was not viable to increase this if there were not many customers at the premises.

In response to a question, Mr Thompson explained that the group had been monitored by the DPS and that they had considered it was better to keep the group together in a confined area, rather than disperse them. He was unsure why the incident had happened at the pool table and explained that there had been a family environment before the incident had taken place.

Mrs Dunne explained that the CCTV had not been functional at the time of the incident as there had not been a requirement to have it on their present licence. She confirmed that staff would have been trained to use it, if it had have been a condition. Mrs Dunne advised that the toilets were monitored with regard to drugs and that none had ever been found.

PC Murray reported that the level of drugs that had been found was reasonably high and had indicated that there had been some drug use on the premises. She stated that the DPS had been advised how to take measures to reduce the potential for drugs to be used on their premises. She further advised that the evidence that had been found may not be connected to the group that had been involved in the incident.

A Member raised concern that the group had been served drinks when they had already been intoxicated. Mrs Dunne explained that drinks had not been served to the group.

PC Murray confirmed that one qualified SIA door supervisor had been employed on the night of the incident. Mr Thompson advised that the DPS had access to a recognised company to employ SIA staff.

PC Murray explained that the Police were happy with the way that the DPS had responded so far with regard to the conditions that were requested. She emphasised that agreement had to be made with regard to the outstanding conditions. PC Murray stated that the Police were happy to withdraw the interim conditions one, two and four.

The Licensing Committee adjourned to make their decision at 2:06 pm. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Assistant Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 2:37 pm, when the Sub-Committee re-convened.

application for a new premises licence under the licensing act 2003 - the hi low club, breach lane, lower halstow

Mr Price, the Applicant, explained that the Hi Low Club would be a venue for a group of like minded people to pursue their activities in the old Lower Halstow Social Club.

Mrs Phillips, representing local residents, spoke against the application and raised the following points: concerns with regard to drink driving; the venue was not easily accessible and there was a lack of public transport, so people would need to drive; the venue could be open to abuse as it was in a rural area which was not policed as much as an urban area; potential for criminal damage; the car park was on a blind corner and there was no formal agreement for cars to park there; where would the cars park if the agreement was rescinded; there was a gas supply near to the smoking area which was also near to residents' parking; problem of policing when customers left the premises; disturbance to local residents; roads poorly lit; asbestos roof on the club and potential danger when it is removed; exposure of children to smoking and drinking; anti-social behaviour; some houses backed onto the club; previous club had closed down as not enough customers; the proximity of the club meant that all noise could be heard as the walls were single skinned; disruption to shift workers; increased stress to local residents in poor health; the fire escape was very close to local properties; problem of overlooking and a lack of parking spaces for the club in the car park.

The Environmental Protection Manager brought the Sub-Committee's attention to his memo in the report. He advised that the club was sited in a very quiet area and would have an impact on local residents and he considered that it was inappropriate to be open after midnight in this type of location. The Environmental Protection Manager explained that he had no details of the soundproofing that was proposed by the applicant. With regard to music, he explained that it was important that no music was audible in the adjoining premises at any time. He raised concern with the amount of day to day noise that could be heard by the adjoining premises, especially in their living areas, and noise from people leaving the club. He suggested that the only mitigation available was for users of the club to be asked to leave the premises quietly and the club's opening hours be reduced in order to mitigate the problems that could be caused. The Environmental Protection Manager brought the Sub-Committee's attention to his recommended hours for recorded music, supply of alcohol and opening hours and suggested that whatever hours the Sub-Committee agreed that they did not exceed those that he had recommended. He considered that the application had meant a large change to the previously low key use of the venue and was not large enough for what was planned there. He explained that if the application had been for a new premises or a change of use in Planning terms, he would have recommended refusal. He recommended five conditions to be implemented as set out in his memo.

The Environmental Protection Manager further added that the premises were very old and of poor construction, with noise and stale beer odours passing through which he advised may not stop. He questioned the viability of the club and whether it was in the right location.

The Environmental Protection Manager concluded by stating that it needed to be demonstrated how effective the soundproofing was and if the noise could not be controlled, additional conditions were needed. He suggested that conditions could only go so far with regard to the noises generated by people, both on and off the premises.

The Ward Member advised that he had visited the application site. He raised issues similar to those already raised and considered the proposal would have an adverse effect on the quality of the local residents' lives.

In response to a question, Mr Price advised that he would add soundproofing to the adjacent property and would renew or replace the staircase. He stated that he would take additional measures, as necessary, to reduce noise issues.

A local resident raised concern that his floorboards were shared by the applicant which meant that sound would still travel through.

Mr Price stated he preferred to have a licence to serve alcohol on the premises and advised that the licence would mean that his premises would be regulated. He planned to install a CCTV system at the club and a strict code would be applied when customers left the premises with regard to consideration to local residents. Mr Price advised that he considered the average attendance per evening would be 30 - 40 people. He had not yet received expert opinion on sound proofing and confirmed that the use of the club was not as had been rumoured. Mr Price explained that delivery vehicles would park in the car park.

The Licensing Committee adjourned to make their decision at 3:50 pm. Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Assistant Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 4:15 pm, when the Sub-Committee re-convened.