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 time always kept a good working relationship with Kent Police and the Licensing Authority.

The Legal Officer asked the Premises Licence holder to clarify the location of the balcony, which the Premises Licence Holder confirmed was the area marked “Fire Escape”. The Legal Officer asked if customers were permitted to access this area and the Premises Licence Holder confirmed that they were. The Legal Officer asked about the glass bottles and the Premises Licence Holder said that there was a mistake in the Dispersal Policy which said that glass bottles were permitted in this area. The Legal Officer asked whether the bottle used in the incident had been recovered and the Premises Licence Holder confirmed it had not although they did confirm that all bottles were toughened or polycarbonate.

The Kent Police Licensing Officer outlined the extra conditions agreed between Kent Police and the Premises Licence Holder for Members. Kent Police confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed conditions and that those already added to the licence by way of minor variation were enough to deal with their concerns. They confirmed that they understood the concerns from the Premises Licence Holder regarding ID scans and were no longer seeking to impose this as a condition.

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee adjourned at 12:23 pm to make their decision. 

Members of the Sub-Committee, the Contentious Lawyer and Democratic Services Officer returned to the meeting at 1:10 pm and the decision, attached as Appendix I to these minutes was announced.

Resolved:

That the Premises Licence Holder be issued with a warning and that they should ensure the Dispersal Policy reflected the terms of the premises licence and that they should continue to work with Kent Police and ensure incidents were reported if appropriate.