The persons participating in the hearing were identified as follows:

Chairman – Councillor Hinder

Committee Member – Councillor Garten

Committee Member – Councillor Mrs Robertson

Substitute Committee Member Councillor Brindle was present as a training exercise.

Legal Advisor – Mr Robin Harris

Online Facilitator/Democratic Services Officer – Miss Oliviya Parfitt

Applicant – KDG Maidstone Ltd, Mr Gurjeet Dhillon

Objector – Ms Lisa Postiglione

All parties confirmed that they were aware of the Sub-Committee hearing procedure and had each received a copy of the hearing procedure document.

The Chairman explained that:

·  The Sub-Committee would allow all parties to put their case fully and make full submissions within a reasonable time frame.

·  The procedure would take the form of a discussion led by the Sub-Committee and they would usually permit cross-examination conducted within a reasonable timeframe.

·  Any persons attending the hearing who behaved in a disruptive manner may be directed to leave the hearing by the Sub-Committee (including temporarily) after which, such person may submit to the Sub-Committee over the Instant Messaging facility any information which that person would have been entitled to give orally had the person not been required to leave the meeting. If this is not possible, they may be permitted to speak at the Chairman’s Invitation.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had read all the papers.

The Chairman enquired whether any draft conditions had been agreed between the applicant and other parties; no draft conditions had been agreed.

The Legal representative summarised the premises license application, which requested indoor late-night refreshment from 23:00-03:00 seven days a week, with opening hours of 11:00-03:00. Kent Police had withdrawn their objection due to the agreed draft conditions that would be included within the license, if granted. One other party objected on the grounds of crime and disorder, public safety and nuisance and protecting children from harm. It was noted that the grounds for objection had been taken by the ordinary, rather than legislative meaning. The Legal Representative would provide clarity to the objector’s argument later in the hearing.

An inconsistency within point 1a of the agreed conditions with Kent Police was highlighted, which referenced the sale and supply of alcohol, which had not been requested by the applicant.  The Legal Representative clarified that if the licence were granted, the draft condition could be amended.

The applicant was invited to make their opening remarks and re-confirmed that no alcohol would be sold or supplied at the business and that CCTV was in operation. Mr Dhillon highlighted that there were several other businesses within the local area that opened late and that whilst the business had not made provision for security staff, if there were any incidents of anti-social behaviour or crime within the premises then this would be reconsidered. Staff would be trained on how to respond to anti-social behaviour and contacting the emergency services. The business could seat up to 90 people, which Mr Dhillon offered to reduce, past a certain time, if necessary.

The objector asked the applicant about their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36