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

application for a new premises licence under the licensing act 2003 at the ship inn, east street, sittingbourne, kent.

The Chairman introduced the report which set out the application for a new premises licence at The Ship Inn, East Street, Sittingbourne.

Mr Woods, the applicant's solicitor, gave an overview of the application. He stated that the application was exactly the same as the licence held previously at the premises, which had been surrendered by the previous owner. Mr Woods explained that his clients had completely refurbished the premises which they intended to run as a traditional pub with food and entertainment, including karaoke. Mr Woods stated that they were not applying for a nightclub and there would not be a dancefloor.

Mr Woods welcomed the 15 conditions recommended by Kent Police which he considered promoted the licensing objectives. Mr Woods stated that the applicant's would be happy to offer the following further conditions: to ensure the gates at the rear of the premises were locked at all times to ensure access and egress was only from East Street and provision of a noise limiter.

Mrs Gabell spoke on behalf of her parents who lived in Fairview Road, and raised the following concerns: had previously experienced noise pollution from the premises and this would be increased; no mention of soundproofing; how would people be able to leave at the back in the event of a fire if the gates were locked; patrons would park on the estate at the rear of the premises exacerbating parking problems; increase in noise affecting young families and the elderly; public nuisance; the CCTV would protect patrons only and not local residents.

Councillor Derek Conway, a Ward Member, asked whether he could read a statement on behalf of Councillor McCusker who represented the adjoining Ward. Whilst this was accepted by the Chairman the applicant's solicitor did not agree, as it had not been submitted during the 28 day consultation period, as defined in the Licensing Act 2003.

Councillor Conway and Councillor Sylvia Bennett, Ward Members, spoke on behalf of local residents and raised concerns which included: that it was not a complete application; the gates at the rear had caused access issues for some residents and would lead to an increase in noise.

Mr Hills and Mrs Jury, local residents, raised the following concerns; surely late night music with alcohol being served was a nightclub; residents of Riverbourne Court were not aware of the application; extra policing would be required; no nearby car park; would disturb the sleep of local children; would devalue property in the area; how would fake ID be regulated at the premises and could lead to vandalism to shopfronts in East Street.

The Licensing Officer clarified that with regard to fake ID, only ID with PASS marked identification would be allowed and that form of ID was almost impossible to duplicate. She explained that Kent Fire and Rescue had viewed the proposals and raised no objection. She explained that a new Live Music Bill had come into effect on 1 October 2012 which allowed music to be played at public houses from 8 am to 11 pm without the need for a licence and that some of this application would be covered by the new legislation.

In response to queries, the Assistant Solicitor clarified the differences between planning and licensing legislation and that parking was not a valid reason to refuse the licence.

The Chairman then invited the Sub-Committee to ask questions. He then invited both sides to sum up their cases.

In summing up Mr Woods, the applicants solicitor, noted that Kent Police, Kent Fire and Rescue and SBC's Environmental Health Section raised no concerns, subject to the 15 conditions requested by Kent Police. He stated that 'speculative' concerns were not evidence and could not be considered under the Licensing Act 2003 and that the conditions imposed promoted the four licensing objectives.

Mr Hills, an objector, was then invited to sum up. He considered that the Police anticipated problems at the premises, hence the need for 15 conditions and allowing the licence would lead to public safety issues and increased public nuisance.

The Sub Committee adjourned to make their decision at 11.20 pm. Members of the Sub-Committee, Assistant Solicitor and Democratic Services Officer left the meeting and returned at 11.40 pm, when the meeting re-convened.