The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Fire Evacuation Procedure was noted.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the procedure that would be followed.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for  themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

To review the premises licence at Best One, 1-3 High Street, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4AY.

Tabled paper - Addendum summary of report uploaded 18.04.16

Mrs Angela Seaward, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a review of the Premises Licence at Best One, 1-3 High Street, Sittingbourne following a visit by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Police on 11 February 2016 when 58.8 litres of whisky that was non-duty paid was removed from the premises.  In addition, two of the current licence conditions were being breached.

The Senior Licensing Officer reported that following this incident an application had been received to transfer the Licence Holder, and variation of Designated Premises Supervisor following the sale of the business.  The premises name had changed to Sittingbourne Food & Wine and details of this were contained within the Addendum Report which was tabled for Members.

Mr Geoff Rowley, representing Kent Police as the applicant, presented their case.  He drew attention to Home Office guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which stated that this type of activity should be treated particularly seriously and that revocation of the licence should, in the first instance, be seriously considered.

In response to a query from the Senior Lawyer (Contentious), Mr Rowley confirmed that the alcohol seized was not counterfeit but non-duty paid. 

Mr Onur Ozkul, the respondent, explained that he had taken over the premises on 24 February 2016.  He was not aware that alcohol had been seized at the premises or that there were conditions attached to the licence. 

In response to a query from the Chairman, Mr Rowley stated that DC Angus was not able to attend today’s hearing as she was attending another licensing review at Gravesham Borough Council.

Following a question from the Senior Lawyer (Contentious), Mr Rowley stated that they had no objections to Mr Ozkul taking over the business.  They considered that suspending the licence for a short period of time was the best course of action.  Mr Rowley referred to the conditions they were proposing, outlined in Appendix A of the committee report, which he read out for Members.

In response to questions, Mr Ozkul, apologised that he was not aware of the conditions of the licence.  He explained that he was inexperienced but was willing to learn.   He confirmed that he would be happy for the additional conditions requested by the Police to be included on the licence if imposed by the Committee.  He concluded that he just wanted to operate a successful business.

In summing up Mr Rowley stated that whilst they had no objection to Mr Ozkul operating the licence they would like to see some sort of action taken in respect of the non-duty paid alcohol.

Members of the Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision at 10.33am.  Members of the Sub-Committee, the Senior Lawyer (Contentious) and the Democratic Services Officer returned at 11.30am, when the meeting was re-convened.

The decision, as set out at Appendix I to these minutes was announced.

Resolved:  The Sub-Committee agreed to grant the application for review in part subject to conditions necessary for the promotion of the licensing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 645.