MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
Licensing Act 2003 Sub Committee
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON Monday 29 April 2024
Attendees:
|
Committee Members:
|
Councillors Garten (Chairman), Joy and Trzebinski
|
43. Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies.
44. Notification of Substitute Members
There were no Substitute Members.
45. Election of Chairman
RESOLVED: That Councillor Garten be elected as Chairman for the duration of the meeting.
46. Disclosures by Members and Officers
There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.
47. Disclosures of Lobbying
There were no disclosures of lobbying.
48. Exempt Items
RESOLVED: That all items be taken in public, unless any Member of the panel wished to specifically refer to the information contained within Item 8 – Exempt Appendices to Item 7 – Application for Review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for the Zoo, 10-11 Market Buildings, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1HP, in which case the Sub-Committee would enter into closed session due to the likely disclosure of exempt information.
49. Application for Review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The Zoo,10 - 11 Market Buildings, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1HP
The persons participating in the hearing were identified as follows:
1. Chairman – Councillor Garten
2. Sub-Committee Members – Councillors Joy and Trzebinski
3. Senior Licensing Officer – Lorraine Neale
4. Legal Advisor – Helen Ward
5. Democratic Services Officer – Jordan Ifield
6. Representative of the Applicant – Mark Davies
7. The Applicant – PC James Williams
8. Representative of the Licence Holder – Sarah Clover
9. The Licence Holder – Christopher Dyer
10. Witness for the Licence Holder/Interested Party – Councillor Gordon Newton
11. Witness for the Licence Holder/Interested Party – Karl Winham
12. Witness for the Licence Holder/Interested Party – Jason Halle
13. Witness for the Licence Holder – Jack Steven
14. Interested Party – Victoria Smith
15. Interested Party – Robert Bearup
The Sub-Committee Members confirmed that they had read the papers regarding the hearing.
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 within a reasonable timeframe.
· Any person 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 any information which that person would have been entitled to give orally had the person not been required to leave the meeting. If this was not possible, they may be permitted to speak at the Chairman’s invitation.
The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report and stated that Kent Police had applied for a review of The Zoo’s licence on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and preventions of public nuisance. References were made to the review application in Appendix 1 of the report, the current premise licence in Appendix 3 of the report, and the public consultation responses in Appendix 5 of the report. It was stated that the Applicant was requesting that the Sub-Committee; reduce the terminal hour for all licensed activities to 00:00 a.m., or reduce the terminal hour for the sale of alcohol to 00:00 a.m. and regulated entertainment to 1:00 a.m.
The Representative of the Applicant made their opening statement and stated that Kent Police had concerns about the premises regarding crime and disorder. It was stated that Kent Police had attempted efforts to reduce crime and disorder at the premises but these had been unsuccessful and that a hearing was requested to address this.
The Representative of the Applicant outlined the following incidents in the police report:
· Appendix 1; A Marshal was responsible for striking a patron while removing multiple patrons from the premises. The patron was left unconscious and needed medical attention;
· Appendix 2; A patron was allegedly removed with excessive force by a Security Industry Authority (SIA) door staff member. The incident was not recorded in the premises log book and a statement from another SIA doorman at the incident was recorded over a year after the incident. No further action was taken by Kent Police;
· Appendix 3; A group of patrons were fighting with Marshals and SIA door staff at the premises at 3:10 a.m. Kent Police did not attend the incident initially, but Police Officers were called to a disturbance later in the morning that was connected to the incident. No further action was taken by Kent Police;
· Appendix 4; A group of patrons was ejected from the premises by SIA door staff, and a fight subsequently occurred with two Police Officers who were on patrol outside the venue. A promoter at the premises was allegedly involved and a public order offence was recorded. No further action was taken by Kent Police;
· Appendix 5; the Licence Holder was issued a Breach of Warning letter which included allegations that he had breached the conditions of the premises licence. This included allegations that he had not attended a sufficient number of Night Time Economy Forum meetings with Kent Police, that a SIA door staff member had not been wearing a high visibility armband during an incident, and that patrons had been allowed re-entry after 3am;
· Appendix 7; A patron was bitten by another patron, and the patron responsible was ejected from the premises. After the incident the Applicant held a meeting with the Licence Holder over the number of calls to the Police regarding incidents at the venue, but no further action was taken;
· Appendix 8; A promoter working at the premises chased a patron from the venue to a bus shelter near the premises, where the promoter subsequently assaulted the patron. An SIA door staff member at the premises had chased both individuals and attempted to protect the patron at the bus shelter. The promoter had since been convicted for assault;
· Appendix 9; A member of a group of ejected patrons attacked a Marshal outside the venue. Both fell to the floor and the Marshal restrained the patron on the floor where another Marshal allegedly kicked the patron. The Marshal accused of kicking the patron was sacked from their position. The Applicant contacted the Licence Holder regarding the use of Marshals at the premises and a report of patrons using nitrous oxide balloons in the High Street;
· Appendix 9.1; Door staff at the premises were assaulted at the premises at 3:00 a.m. and a patron was detained at the venue. Police attended the premises but door staff had released the patron before their arrival. In response to questions the Applicant stated that the Police response time to 999 calls varied on resourcing levels and the urgency of a situation;
· Appendix 9.2; A group of patrons was ejected from the premises due to causing issues, and a member of the patrons pushed themselves away from staff which caused him to trip and injure their head. No further action was taken;
· Appendix 9.3; Maidstone CCTV Control witnessed a group of aggressive patrons at the premises at 4:00 a.m. The group moved away from the premises and monitored, but at 4:06 a.m. Maidstone CCTV Control contacted Kent Police about a disturbance involving the group at the premises. The group dispersed without intervention;
· Appendix 9.4; The premises contacted Maidstone CCTV Control to ask for Police attendance at 2:58 a.m. after a patron attacked door staff. The premises was advised to call 999 but there was no record of further Police attendance. At 4:04 a.m. Maidstone CCTV Control reported a large fight involving 15 persons at the premises. Police attended the premises and upon arrival the persons stopped fighting and dispersed;
In response to the cases outlined, the Representative of the Licence Holder stated that the Licence Holder had agreed to implement seven additional conditions in 2023 to mitigate against concerns raised by Kent Police regarding anti-social behaviour. The following incidents in the Police report were addressed:
· In Appendix 1; Both of the Marshalls involved in the incident were removed from the premises and arrested. The Street Marshall responsible was prosecuted for Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and received a 24 month community order. The premises had not employed a Marshal since additional conditions were implemented in 2023 and it was emphasised premises staff were not being obstructive during the incident.
· In Appendix 2; Kent Police did not attend the incident, and the Licence Holder had supplied the Sub-Committee CCTV evidence which contradicted the account of the patron claiming they were unconscious during the incident. The patron in the incident did not support prosecution and distanced themselves from Kent Police enquiries. In response to questions, it was confirmed the premises could provide its log book if requested by the Sub-Committee but it was not requested for the hearing;
· In Appendix 3; Kent Police did not take further action over the incident, and a witness statement had been provided by an SIA door staff member. Patrons who were recorded as intoxicated at the premises could have been consuming alcohol before reaching the premises. It was highlighted that the premises had recorded 11 patrons being denied entry, and that the presence of SIA door staff increased the amount of security in Maidstone town centre;
· In Appendix 4; The patrons ejected from the premises were removed because of offensive language and no victims were identified by Kent Police during the incident;
· In Appendix 5; It was clarified that Night Time Economy Forum meetings had been regularly cancelled preventing the Licence Holder from attending, that the SIA door staff member accused of not wearing a high visibility armband had just started a shift when an incident occurred, and that the licensing conditions allowed for existing patrons to re-enter after 3:00 a.m.;
· In Appendix 7; The perpetrator had returned to the premises several days after the incident, but was refused entry and premises staff took a photo of their ID. In a meeting after the incident, the Applicant asked the Licence Holder to use a Police radio more frequently for similar incidents;
· In Appendix 8; The actions of the promoter were unjustifiable, but they were acting independently at the point of violence after they were verbally provoked by the patron. The promoter was banned from the premises after the incident. The premises’ licensing responsibility was to mitigate against the incident, and an SIA doorman at the premises attempted to protect the attacked patron;
· In Appendix 9; The door staff were successful at removing a group of rejected patrons but disputed that the CCTV showed a Marshal kicking a patron but was kicking an object on the floor. It was highlighted that the Marshal was removed from their position with immediate effect after the incident and that there was no connection between the patrons in the High Street using nitrous oxide balloons and the premises;
· In Appendix 9.1; There were limits to the premises detaining patrons until Police Officers arrive, and in one incident the premises detained a patron for four and a half hours. It was highlighted that SIA door staff do not have the same powers as Police Officers to detain patrons;
· In Appendix 9.2; The patron injured in the incident had tripped over after pushing a staff member which caused the injury;
· In Appendix 9.3; The premises reported a group of patrons being aggressive to door staff to Maidstone CCTV Control but were not allowed in the premises. The patrons walked away from the premises and Police Officers did not attend;
· In Appendix 9.4; The patron attacking door staff had been denied entry from the premises.
In a further response to the incidents outlined in the Police report, the Licence Holder explained that:
· He had received an email from the Applicant in June 2023 requesting information from the SIA regarding the usage of Marshals in the town centre as his knowledge was insufficient;
· It was difficult for premises staff to define poor behaviour from patrons as there was not a universal definition. However, there were warning signs such as slurred speech and aggressiveness, which staff would attempt to stop escalating. Door staff would assess if patrons were intoxicated at entry, but patrons would frequently come to the premises after consuming alcohol at other establishments;
· Attendance at the Night Time Economy Forum meetings with Kent Police had been very poor from multiple stakeholders and had been cancelled on multiple occasions, by both Kent Police and stakeholders. In response to this, the Licence Holder had established a venue led Pubwatch scheme, which included 12 town centre venues and had held two meetings.
· In Appendix 8; The promoter was banned from the premises after the incident, but due to a breakdown of communication with management, the promoter did work a shift at the premises after they were banned. The promoter has since been reminded they are prohibited from returning. In response to questions, it was confirmed that the premises kept a list of prohibited patrons and staff, and that promoters worked on an ad-hoc basis on Friday and Saturday nights.
Councillor Gordon Newton, Witness for the Licence Holder and Interested Party, was invited to make their case, and stated that the premises held a night for disabled patrons called Gems and that it was a safe space for disabled patrons that should be retained.
Karl Wenham, Witness for the Licence Holder and Interested Party, was invited to make their case, and stated that as the organiser of Gems, the premises had been a safe venue to host the event. It was highlighted that during eight years at the premises, there had been one incident with Kent Police where a patron had dressed inappropriately at a themed night.
Jason Halle, Witness for the Licence Holder and Interested Party, was invited to make their case, and stated that as a patron at Gems, he felt welcome at the premises. It was emphasised that staff at the venue were friendly and that some patrons now felt comfortable attending other nightclubs due to their positive experiences at Gems.
Robert Bearup, Interested Party, was invited to make their case, and claimed as a door staff member at the premises, that anti-social behaviour near the venue was due to a lack of a Police presence. It was stated that there were long police response times to incidents and highlighted a recent incident where the premises had rejected a group of patrons and handed them to Police Officers. The group were subsequently released and attempted to re-enter the premises.
In response to questions the Interested Party stated that the area next to the premises would be blocked off during an incident to prevent members of the public from walking near the incident.
Victoria Smith, Interested Party, was invited to make their case, and stated that as a patron of the Zoo Bar, she had always felt safe at the premises. Door staff at the premises were recognised as welcoming and professional, and that if patrons were refused entry, they were strong enough to prevent forced entry.
In response to questions the Licence Holder stated that the premises had hosted Gems for eight years and occurred every two weeks. On average 150 patrons would attend each night and the event was not held for business interests, but for the benefit of the community.
After requests from the Representatives of the Applicant and Licence Holder, the Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would adjourn to allow negotiations between the parties to form a mutual agreement. The meeting was adjourned between 2:45 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.
The Sub-Committee returned and the Representatives of the Applicant and Licence Holder stated that a provisional agreement was still being negotiated between the Licence Holder and the Applicant.
The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would adjourn to allow negotiations to continue between the Applicant and Licence Holder to form a mutual agreement. The meeting was adjourned between 3:28 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.
The Sub-Committee returned and the Representative of the Licence Holder stated that a mutual agreement had been reached between the Licence Holder and the Applicant. It was proposed to issue the Licence Holder a warning and would include further amendments to its licensing conditions as detailed in the Decision.
In response to questions, the Representative of the Applicant stated that 3:00 a.m. was considered an appropriate time by Kent Police to stop entry to the premises as it would reduce the chances of incidents occurring after that time.
The Chairman advised that the Sub-Committee would retire for deliberation with the legal advisor present. The meeting was adjourned between 4:13 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.
The Sub-Committee returned and the Chairman stated that having considered the agreement proposed by the parties, the Sub-Committee endorsed the proposal in regard to the conditions and the change of licensed hours, but not to issue the premises a warning. The reasons contributing to the decisions were outlined.
It was confirmed that a written decision notice would be provided.
The hearing closed at 4:31 p.m.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee’s decision and reasons be provided within the Notice of Determination attached as an Appendix to the minutes.
50. Exempt Appendices to Item 7 - Application for Review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The Zoo,10 - 11 Market Buildings, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1HP
RESOLVED: That the item be considered alongside Item 7 – Application for Review of a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The Zoo,10 - 11 Market Buildings, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1HP.
</LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>
</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>