The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

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 consider an application for a new premises licence at 1 Gatefield Lane, Faversham ME13 8NX.

Mrs Angela Seaward, the Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the application in respect of 1 Gatefield Lane, Faversham, for the provision of sale of alcohol and recorded music.   She explained that the opening times would be from 10am to 10pm, Monday to Saturday, and from 11am to 3pm on Sundays.  The Senior Licensing Officer advised that small platters of food would also be available.  Representations had been received from both Kent Police and Environmental Health, their comments were included in the report.  It had also been requested that the volume of background music was to be kept at a reasonable level.  A representation from the Planning Department had been received, however, the Senior Licensing Officer explained that this was separate to the licensing application and was reported for information only.  Two representations from objectors had been received and their comments were outlined in Appendix C in the report and within the tabled paper.

Mr Fabio Armenti, the applicant, presented his case.  He outlined his reasons for his proposals and explained that he wanted to offer a different hospitality experience for Faversham.  Mr Armenti acknowledged the neighbours’ concerns with any potential noise issues from the premises.  He considered any noise from the premises would be less that 30 watts and would not create a nuisance.

In response to a question, Mr Armenti read out the Licensing Committee’s objectives.

Mrs Ellie Metcalfe, representing her mother, Mrs Janet Lee whose property was next door to 1 Gatefield Lane, outlined Mrs Lee’s concerns with the application.  Mrs Metcalfe explained that she considered the shared wall between the properties was not suitable for the proposed use of the property.  She stated that even now it was possible to hear everyday ‘comings and goings’ through the wall.  Mrs Metcalfe explained that the noise was not so much of an issue during the day, but was she was concerned about the evenings.  She explained that her mother did not object to the proposed use, but was concerned with the practicalities of addressing the noise that would be generated, and was keen to address the issues before they became more serious.

At this point, the Senior Lawyer explained that any potential noise issues were speculative at the moment, and he acknowledged that the applicant was keen not to cause nuisance.

Mr Armenti explained that he had taken the dividing wall into consideration, and planned to mitigate any noise issues by positioning shelves and wine racks against that wall.  He acknowledged that this would not be a sound-proofing solution, but it could stop some noise going through to the neighbour’s property.  Mr Armenti was happy to try and address the issues that had been raised.

Discussion ensued on the planned opening times, and whether they would be used to the full extent.

Mrs Metcalfe considered from a practical point of view, that soundproofing should be in place, with the assumption that the premises would be used for the requested opening times, rather than coming back at a later date.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 263.