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.  Nobody must leave the assembly point until everybody can be accounted for and nobody must return to the building until the Chairman has informed them that it is safe to do so; 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 Chairman drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation Procedure.

The Chairman opened the meeting and asked those present to introduce themselves.

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 Interests (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.

(c)           Where it is possible that a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Member might be predetermined or biased the Member should declare their predetermination or bias and then leave the meeting while that item is considered.

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 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.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report which asked Members to consider the application for a review of the licence granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the Life Nightclub, 76-78A High Street, Sittingbourne, Kent ME10 4PB made by PC 11044 Daniel Hunt. The Licensing Officer reminded Members that the reasons for the review were to promote the licensing objectives: The prevention of crime and disorder; the protection of public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The premises had breached the licence conditions and the review application was set out at appendix II of the report. The Licensing Officer informed Members that during the 28-day consultation period comments had been received from the Environmental Health team with regards to some noise complaints at the premises. She added that Kent Police Licensing officers, premises licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) held a meeting at the premises with their legal representatives and some proposed additional conditions to the premises licence were discussed, and these were set out in appendix V of the report.

The Chair asked the Kent Police Licensing Officer, PC 11044 Daniel Hunt to present his statement. He explained the five incidents that were set out in the report, one of which was still on-going.

The Chair invited Members of the panel and officers to ask questions:

-       If the premises had more door staff at the front and within the radius of the premises would it have prevented some of these incidents?;

-       how many door staff did the premises operate with, and what was the capacity of the nightclub?; and

-       how often were staff trained, and was it reviewed by the premises holder?.

The Kent Police Licensing Officer made it clear to Members that a presence on the door did not always prevent incidents from occurring. However, Kent Police expected premises to be responsible for the customers leaving the premises and for security staff to make any early interventions, without putting themselves at risk, within a certain radius of the premises.

The Premises Holder clarified that the nightclub on a normal night would operate with 4-6 door personnel with extra staff inside the facility, walking the floor. The nightclub could hold up to 285 people and the staff were regularly trained and kept up-to-date on the nightclub’s procedures.

To decide whether to pass the resolution set out below in respect of the following item:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting from the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2.

1.     Information relating to any individual.

2.     Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

At this point, following a request from Kent Police to show some CCTV evidence, Members took a vote on whether to inspect the CCTV footage in closed session.

Resolved:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule of 12A of the Act:

1.            Information relating to any individual.

2.            Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

The Kent Police Licensing Officer showed Members the CCTV footage and the Chair invited Members and Officers to ask questions.

The Chair then asked Members to vote on whether the meeting should revert back into open session.

Resolved:

That the meeting be opened back into public session.

The Legal Officer asked a question with regard to the new Dispersal & Control of Admission Policy, and she asked how the premises holder would enforce items being bought outside into the smoking area. The premises holder explained that he hoped the customers of the nightclub would be able to go outside into the smoking area with their drinks as it was a sociable place for people to smoke and drink. He advised that there was a member of staff regularly checking the smoking area and clearing away any drinks or drinking vessels.

The Senior Environmental Health Officer presented his statement setting out the various noise complaints they had received over the past year and that officers had witnessed the noise coming from the nightclub and from customers leaving the nightclub. The Senior Environmental Health Officer proposed to the Committee that the closing hours of the Life nightclub be amended from 4 am to 2 am so that they were the same as similar businesses in the High Street. The premises holder reminded Members that as shown in the restricted appendices several local residents had written to him in support of the nightclub and that they were happy for it to remain operating within its normal hours. The Legal Officer asked the Senior Environmental Health Officer if he had an opportunity to review the Dispersal Policy and whether it dealt with his concerns and he confirmed that it did.

The Chair invited the premises holder to make his statement.

The Premises Licence Holder apologised that the premises CCTV footage had not been working and assured Members that this had been repaired and the premises had been re-cabled with new CCTV cameras. He added that during the police incidents he was unable to be present at the premises on those particular nights due to personal reasons and had replaced the door staff and ensured that they were all fully Security Industry Authority (SIA) trained and made aware that they were responsible for customers leaving the premises and the surrounding area. He emphasised to Members that he had held the Licence for 17 years and in that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The meeting was adjourned from 11:02 am to 11:10 am and 12:23 pm to 1:10 pm.