Contact your Parish Council
LICENSING ACT 2003 SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
FRIDAY 2ND OCTOBER 2009 AT 10:00 AM
TOWN HALL, HIGH STREET, MAIDSTONE
PRESENT:
Committee Members: Councillor FitzGerald (Chairman)
Councillor Mrs Gibson
Councillor Mrs Hinder
Council Officers: Sarah Foster – Legal Advisor
Lorraine Neale – Senior Licensing Officer
Applicant: Mr Stephen Thomas representing
Bearsted & Thurnham Club
Witnesses C Syrett
A Yates
Responsible Authorities: N/A
Interested Parties: H Butterworth
K Brinsley representing Mrs & Mrs Ashdown
Y Beckett Cole also representing Mr Hajid
11. DISCLOSURES BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
There were none.
12. EXEMPT ITEMS
RESOLVED: That the items on the Agenda be taken in public as proposed.
13. Application
for to vary a club
premise certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 for Bearsted and Thurnham
Club, The Green, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 4DT.
Opening Remarks
The Chairman opened the meeting
by asking all parties to introduce themselves. He then read out to all
present the administrative matters as set out in the Licensing Act Sub
Committee Hearing – Order of Proceedings document. All participants confirmed
that they had copies of and understood the procedure. All Committee Members
confirmed that they had read the papers beforehand.
No Draft Conditions
No Witnesses
The Hearing
Sarah Foster gave a brief description and outlined the application for the variation of a club premise certificate for the Bearsted & Thurnham Club.
I. The Applicant
Stephen Thomas explained that the application was being made by a club that had been running over 100 years as a mens club were women and children were guests. Entertainment is private entertainment at the moment with no limit on times and is used in conjunction with current opening hours. Also its New Years Eve’s hours are under the old legislation under the old act, currently the club uses TENS at the moment to request extra hours for Friday and Saturday events. The Soufflé, White Horse and Oak on the Green are all premises in close proximity and all close at midnight.
The club have spent money doing up the premises and are actively promoting membership. The committee are conscious that they have to work constructively with their neighbours. They thought they were being considerate to neighbours by putting in an application requesting 2 weekends per month till midnight when they have entertainers. The reason being that due to the current night time economy people tend to go out later than they did and so the request was made for the extra hour. Currently when members are leaving the club at 11pm they will go to other premises that are still open. There are no issues at the club with crime and disorder or public safety and children have to be accompanied by their parents or an adult. Clubs have more control over their members and can apply disciplinary procedures. Members can be fined, suspended or excluded, and incidents are taken seriously. Members must abide by the club rules.
Smoking is not a licensable activity and whether the premises are closed or not people will go out to smoke after 11pm and currently the club is not responsible for those people. While the works were going on at the front of the club people would congregate at the side of the building and this ultimately affected Mr Hajid and Yasmina Beckett-Cole. The club are happy for signage to be put up requesting members be quiet when leaving the club and to respect residents human rights. Ultimately the application request for 4 hours per month and the outside area would be supervised. The front of the building is a lobby system with two sets of doors with one set closed at all times, there have been no complaints made to environmental health about noise issues.
H Butterworth asked about the front lit patio which had no boundary around it before and asked why patrons were still outside up until midnight when the club closed at 11pm.
Mr Thomas replied they were waiting for taxis ect.
H Butterworth asked if 40 minutes was usual to wait for taxis.
Y Beckett-Cole asked when the CCTV would come into affect.
A Yates answered it came into affect last week.
Councillor Fitzgerald asked to explain drinking up
Stephen Thomas explained that the
licensing act licenses the sale and supply of alcohol the clubs hours are until
11pm. Drinking up is not a licensable activity and can carry on till the close
of the premises.
II. Interested Parties
Y Beckett-Cole asked why the CCTV had been installed post objections and after the hearing date had been fixed. She explained she was a local resident to the club and their next door neighbour. She also pointed out that the advertising notice had been obscured from view and that residents could have missed an opportunity to make representations because of that. Some of her issues were personal and may not be covered by the licensing objectives but were more about the impact on their lives. Some of the members were abusive and disrespectful since the smoking ban members are outside all day and at night. The noise gets worse the later it gets, members persist on gathering and smoking down the side of the club where her garden wall is. If she spends anytime in the garden she has to inhale their smoke and endure cigarettes butts being thrown over her wall, she considered her garden to be an extension of her home and objected to being able to overhear mobile phone conversations of some of the men as the content was not always suitable, not all the issues were confined to the garden as she could also hear them in her property especially when her windows and doors were open. She had overheard embarrassing topics of conversation one example men discussing woman’s breasts, her point was that members would not endure the erosion of privacy in their own homes. Sometimes the club has extensions to their entertainment and the noise from those events is unbearable, coupled with the members who are outside smoking and talking.
There was an occasion in February where she got up in the early hours and went into the club to personally complain to the manager who subsequently visited her at home and apologised on 2nd March 2009. He also brought wine and flowers to the meeting and gave her reassurances that they would control members in more suitable ways, ensuring members smoke at the front of the club, that live entertainment would occur occasionally and members would vacate the premises on time with entertainment stopped at a suitable time. The club had concerns about restricting members numbers the impression being given to her that if that were actioned members would vote for an alternative management who would give them what they want. She explained she lived in a 400 year old grade 2 listed property with restrictions and because of this could not screen herself from the existing pollution and noise levels adequately. The club could install noise limiters set as a condition to protect neighbours if the application were to succeed.
The extension to hours would allow members to linger till 1am. She purchased her property 7 years ago and the previous manager of the club left 2 years ago and all the problems have been since then. Since the change in management the calibre of membership has changed which is noticeable by the regular foul language used, by the fact that members no longer have to comply with an interview process or to be proposed and seconded to become members of the club. She endured the noise while the works at the front of the club were being carried out and feels the changes are to benefit the club at the expense of local residents. Because of the situation at the moment residents feel intimidated by club members making comments about us making objections about the application. She also felt that she would have problems in selling her home on if she were to make any formal complaint to Environmental Health as she would have to notify any potential buyer of her home of that fact.
Stephen Thomas asked if her husband was a member of the club.
Y Beckett-Cole answered yes he had become a member very recently.
Stephen Thomas asked if she only had third party evidence about admission to the club.
Y Beckett-Cole answered she only knew what she had been told.
Stephen Thomas answered she had not been furnished with the correct information and that whenever entertainments were provided the management would patrol outside to make sure there was no noise outside.
Y Beckett-Cole answered people had personal opinions about noise levels and they may differ person to person.
Councillor Gibson asked for clarification on the double/secondary glazing of the club.
C Syrett answered that every window in the premises were double glazed sash windows.
Councillor Hinder asked if membership had been increased at the club, and, if so had it an affect on traffic increase.
Y Beckett-Cole pointed out that the club could not facilitate parking and that parking would increase along the green and that the lane was already incredibly noisy with traffic anyway.
K Brinsley explained that the Bearsted population was predominately the elderly, young families and professional couples. The type of things being requested by the club would affect the general population for 52 weeks Fridays and Saturdays but, a one hour extension could be detrimental for people who worked etc. He pointed out that sensible opening hours could be decided by the committee. He explained that local residents were very concerned and this was reflected by the objections received and the people in attendance at this meeting. He also pointed out Bearsted was not a nightspot like Maidstone.
Mr Thomas wanted the residents to understand that the application only requested 2 weekends per month which would be 48 nights per year with Christmas Eve hours for Friday and Saturday if it fell on a Friday or Saturday and that none of these extensions would fall in the working week.
H Butterworth referred to her letter already submitted and also to the map that had been submitted prior to the hearing which showed rented properties as green and owner occupied properties as red. She explained that there had been a change in cultures in Bearsted in recent years that there were more properties rented than owner occupied. She explained one Sunday she was out with her sons and their father and members were packed in the outside walled area outside the club but were also on the pavement they were burly people not the kind of people who would have been members some years ago. She explained on 24th August she observed a blue notice outside the premises which was screened due to the works going on outside and by a hanging basket. She only saw it when she came from the other direction she noted that representations finished on the 2nd of September, because of the circumstances the last day for representations was extended by 3 days she also pointed out the club had made an application before to change its certificate.
Mr Thomas pointed out no previous application had been made by the club.
H Butterworth referred to the applicants operating schedule found at page 5 of the report condition 8e which stipulated no children at anytime and then referred to Mr Thomas’s letter which stated children could be admitted as guests and pointed out that completely negated the condition offered as part of the clubs operating schedule. She then explained that her sons slept in her small back bedroom and not in the larger front bedroom as the front of her house is affected by noise from the club. Although it is too small for them they remain there so as not to be disturbed by the noise from the club. She further explained there was a lack of letters of objection because the majority of houses were occupied by tenants some of whom had landlords who were members of the club. It is mainly tenants who are the nearest neighbours of the club. She made the point that she objected strongly to having to wait for club members to vacate the premises before she could go to bed she was not convinced completely the issues were due to the smoking ban. She felt the membership had changed also. She had tried to go down the informal route initially by dealing with the club direct and there should be a record of that but there was no permanent solution to come from that. Doors still bang as late as ten to midnight and it is not just people waiting for taxis. The club are not considerate neighbours. She asked the committee not to grant the licence but in fact review the existing licence.
Mr Thomas pointed out the Sunday in question there had been a vintage car rally at Bearsted so it had been an unusual weekend that she had made a complaint about that weekend and the congestion outside the club when in fact it was outside all premises in Bearsted and also people spilling out late that evening. He clarified again that the club were only requesting an one hour extension Friday and Saturdays, two weekends per month.
iii
Closing
Speeches
Mr Thomas explained again that the club were requesting a one hour extension Fridays and Saturdays, two weekends per month only. That entertainments would take place on one of them Lynette Duncan who submitted the application had clarified to him that children were not members but could be guests of a member which included guests children.
Y Beckett-Cole stated that 48 weekend nights with the possibility of entertainment did not instil confidence in her especially with all the current noise problems, and was not assured by any comments made here. She felt if the club had addressed her complaints at the time of them then she would not be here now. Comparisons made to pubs in the area and the busy weekends they have do not interest her she is not interested in other premises only this club. She also pointed out it is also members children running amok that cause disturbances and noise. Also the double glazing and fire doors mentioned previously do not work affectively to screen the noise, her partner is a member and has been for a year but has stopped frequenting the club since these matters arose and will not frequent the club again probably.
K Brinsley just wished to reiterate previous comments made by himself on behalf of Bearsted residents.
H Butterworth felt strongly about comparing the club with other premises and felt just because other premises had longer hours it was not necessary for the club to adopt the attitude why not us. She felt the clubs desire for parity was at the expense of residents. She already felt that the club had poor control over its membership.
Mr Thomas pointed out that they must give regard to the licensing objectives and none applied except public nuisance. He felt there had been misunderstanding about the application especially with the statements with regard to parity with other premises. The club had no amplified music so there could be no environmental health noise limitation. He explained they were applying at the request of the members he also pointed out that staying on the premises could be as long as a piece of string as opening hours were not a licensable activity. He also clarified the fact that clubs have the power to exercise discipline over its members something that is not afforded at other types of premises. Public nuisance issues are not prevalent in the area as a whole. The club are applying to midnight because that is the time other premises close. It is agreed that the club must have regard to peoples issues and conditions could be applied to provide double protection for everybody. He explained that work at the premises completed 2 to 3 weeks ago, CCTV was installed and that’s why the side of the club was being used by members. The club will now insist that only the front area is to be used. They will also agree to signage on walls with regards to noise, and, respect for neighbours. The CCTV installation will allow the club to know what is going on in all places. All outside areas will be supervised by the club at all times while being used by members. He also pointed out that a review could be instigated at any time in the future and that nobody wanted that. He stated that Mr Syrett had not been aware of neighbours concerns before but now was and did not want to be subject to a review he felt it was a moderate application and would protect neighbours if the suggested conditions were to be applied.
Councillor Hinder asked if there were a limited to the numbers of members at the club.
Mr Thomas answered that the size of the premises dictated the maximum capacity which currently was 100.
Councillor Mrs Gibson asked what their current total of members was.
Mr Syrett answered there were 470 of which 100 to 150 were active members and as a rule only 30 to 40 people were in the club at any given time.
Councillor Mrs Gibson asked how the club recognised members.
Mr Syrett answered that generally staff recognised the members but members were issued membership cards which were renewed annually for a fee of £15.00. He also explained that the joining fee was £20.00.
Councillor Mrs Gibson asked how often members had been disciplined in the last 2 years.
Mr Syrett answered that there had been a 1 year suspension for one member and a 6 month for another member and that they had an upcoming disciplinary affecting 4 other members.
Councillor Mrs Gibson asked if all 470 members turned up what would happen.
Mr Thomas answered it does not happen.
Y Beckett-Cole asked what would happen if all 470 members could take a guest.
Sarah Foster asked if everybody in attendance were clear on the conditions being suggested by the applicants solicitor.
Comments invited
None
End of Hearing
The Chairman brought the
Hearing to a close and asked that Sarah Foster remain with the Sub Committee
Members during their deliberations.
The Decision
The
Sub Committee came to the decision as shown in the Notice of Determination at
Appendix A.
LICENSING AUTHORITY: MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
LICENSING ACT 2003
LICENSING ACT 2003 (HEARINGS) REGULATIONS 2005
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Application Ref No:
Applicant: Bearsted & Thurnham Club
Regarding CLUB PREMISE CERTIFICATE (VARIATION)
Bearsted & Thurnham Club
The Green
Bearsted
Maidstone
Kent, ME14 4DT
Date(s) of hearing: 2nd October 2009
Date of determination: 2nd October 2009
Committee Members: [Chairman]: Councillor
FitzGerald
Councillor Mrs Gibson
Councillor Mrs Hinder
Legal Advisor in attendance at hearing(s): Sarah Foster
Senior Licensing Officer in attendance at hearing(s): Mrs L Neale
This was an
application for:
R Variation
for a
R Club Premises Certificate
A: Representations, evidence and submissions:
The Committee considered the representations, evidence and submissions of the
following parties:
Applicant
· Name: Bearsted & Thurnham Club
Legal
or other representative: Mr Stephen Thomas
·
Interested
Parties
· Y Beckett Cole
· H Butterworth
· K Brinsley representing Mr & Mrs Ashdown
Representations considered in the absence of a party to the hearing:
· N/A
B:
Consideration
of the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance under s. 182 of the Act and the
Statement of Licensing Policy of Maidstone Borough Council
The Committee has taken into account
the following provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Regulations
thereto:
Section 84 - 86 which relate to the variation of a club premises certificate;
The Committee has taken into account the following provisions of the Guidance
under section 182 of the Act:
Chapter 6 Club
premises certificates
Chapter 10 which relates to conditions attached to licences;
Annexe D which relates to potential conditions. Part 4 Public Nuisance
The Committee has taken into account the following provisions of its Statement of Licensing Policy:
Chapter 19 which
relates to the 4 licensing objectives;
Chapter 22 which relates to the prevention of nuisance;
The Committee has
decided to depart from the guidance under section 182 of the Act and or
the statement of licensing policy for the following reasons:
N/A
Paragraphs and
reasons (state in full):
C: Determination:
The Committee has decided to:
þ grant the application subject to modified conditions necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. If so, state the modified conditions:
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
The Prevention of Public Nuisance
1. CCTV to
be fitted to a standard agreed to by the police that complies with ‘The CCTV Code
of Practice (2008 edition)’ produced by the Information Commissioners Office,
with all public areas and areas used for the display and storage of
alcohol (including all access and egress points) covered.
2. The CCTV system will be maintained and serviced on a regular basis and
records kept to that effect.
3. CCTV shall be operational at all time that members of the public and/or
staff are on the premises.
4. Images will be retained for a period of at least one calendar month by
whatever means the licence holder deems appropriate.
5. The Police, Local Authority or Trading Standards will have access to these
images at any reasonable time and in any case within 24 hours of the request
for the image being made.
6. The Police, Local Authority or Trading Standards will be allowed to take a
recording of the image by tape, CD Rom or any other means within 24
hours of the request for the copy being made.
7. The sale of alcohol will be from 0800 hours to 2200 hours Monday to Sunday.
8. All alcohol will be kept and displayed behind the service counter and no
alcohol will be accessible to customers in any way.
9. A written refusals book will be kept at the premises and all staff fully
trained in its use. The book will be bound and clearly marked. The
following information will be recorded in this book: -
a. Time of refusal
b. Item refused
c. Name or description of person refused sale
d. Reason for refusal
e. Name of staff member making refusal
11. All staff selling alcohol will be trained to at least the level
demonstrated by the Lockett & Co Premises Licence Manual, including
refresher training at least every 6 months, all training shall be
recorded on staff files and auditable. Staff training records shall be made
available for inspection by the Police, Local Authority or Trading Standards at
any reasonable time and within 48 hours of a request being made.
The
Protection of Children from harm
12. All staff
will be fully trained in ‘Challenge 25’ and the training will be fully
auditable and available to any responsible authority on request.
13. Notices to advise customers that ‘Challenge 25’ is in force and notices
will be prominently displayed in all areas to that effect.
14. The only proof of age that will be accepted will be a passport,
photographic driving licence or an accredited ‘PASS’ marked proof
of age card.
Reason: Sub- Committee consider this sufficient to provide training necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives
Reasons for determination:
Kent Police
proposed condition 7: page 36 agenda “ Staff will be fully trained in the CCTV
system and there will be at least one member of staff on duty during trading hours
who is able to provide a recording of any incident at the request of police or
local authority” was not included because authorities will be given access to
images within 24 hours and it is not considered necessary to promote the
licensing objectives to require anything further.
þ Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Reasons (state in full):
* Public Safety
Reasons (state
in full):
þ Prevention of nuisance
Reasons (state
in full):
See Prevention of Crime and Disorder
þ Protection of children from harm
Reasons (state
in full):
In respect of condition 7 the restriction to hours of trading for the sale of alcohol is considered to be necessary to promote the objectives of prevention of crime & disorder and prevention of public nuisance. The Sub-Committee have accepted that evidence from Kent police indicates an unacceptable level of alcohol related incidents in the area surrounding this premises and that evidence from experienced officers from the area is that authorising sale of alcohol later than 22:00 would increase the hours alcohol is available and as a result of that increase crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour resulting in increased public nuisance.
In respect of condition 11 The Sub-Committee consider this sufficient to provide the training necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives.
General reasons for Grant:-
Having heard from Kent Police concerning the general situation relating to crime and disorder, public nuisance and protection of children from harm issues in the Parkwood, Shepway and Senacre areas of Maidstone and from Motor Fuels Ltd’s representative concerning their proposals for the premises, its management, training of staff and other steps to promote the licensing objectives at the premises and having taken into account the Thwaites case referred to, the Sub-Committee on balance find that the Premises Licence can be granted subject to the conditions as modified. It is not considered necessary on the basis of the evidence available to the Sub-Committee at this time to refuse to grant the application.
Informative – If in future there were to be any evidence from Responsible
Authorities or Interested Parties that promotion of the licensing objectives
was not being secured at these premises a review of the licence can be applied
for.
The Sub-Committee believe that the MaidSafe radio system is being extended to this area and the applicant should consider taking part in this.
PRINT NAME Councillor FitzGerald
Signed [Chairman]: A copy of the original document is held on file
Date: 18/06/09