Issue - meetings
Application for Review of a Premises Licence for Century Club, 30-32 Lower Stone Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LX,
Meeting: 11/10/2021 - Licensing Act 2003 Sub Committee (Item 22)
22 Application for Review of a Premises Licence for Century Club, 30-32 Lower Stone Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LX, PDF 244 KB
- A Appendix - Review, item 22 PDF 174 KB
- A1 APPENDIX 1, item 22 PDF 772 KB
- A2. APPENDIX 2, item 22 PDF 178 KB
- A3 Appendix 3, item 22 PDF 97 KB
- A4 Appendix 4, item 22 PDF 441 KB
- A4a Appendix 4(A), item 22 PDF 56 KB
- A5 Appendix 5, item 22 PDF 543 KB
- A6 Appendix 6, item 22 PDF 342 KB
- B Appendix - Current Licence, item 22 PDF 113 KB
- C Appendix - Plan of the premises, item 22 PDF 150 KB
- D Appendix - Plan of the area, item 22 PDF 719 KB
- E Appendix HUMAN RIGHTS, item 22 PDF 26 KB View as HTML (22/13) 10 KB
- F Appendix Review Hearing Procedure, item 22 PDF 147 KB View as HTML (22/14) 41 KB
- Notice of Determination Review Century Club, item 22 PDF 165 KB
The persons participating in the hearing were identified as follows:
Chairman – Councillor Springett
Committee Member – Councillor Hinder
Committee Member – Councillor J Sams
Legal Advisor – Mr Robin Harris
Senior Licensing Officer – Lorraine Neale (in attendance virtually)
Democratic Services Officer – Miss Oliviya Parfitt
Applicant – Chief Inspector Chris Woodward on behalf of Kent Police
For the Applicant:
PC James Williams – Kent Police
Respondents and Representative – Mr Othman Ktifi (Licence holder), Miss Antonia Locatelli (DPS) and Mr Colin Pope of Dadds LLP Licensing Solicitors
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 Sub-Committee agreed to proceed in the absence of the objector and noted the additional comments received that had been distributed to the panel Members. The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had read the papers.
The Chair 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 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 over the Instant messaging facilitating 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 Chair’s Invitation.
The applicant and respondent’s representative confirmed that they had agreed a draft set of conditions.
Prior to their consideration, the Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report and noted that the hearing had originally been scheduled for the 20 September 2021 but had been postponed under Regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
The review had been requested by Chief Inspector Chris Woodward following a series of incidents that had caused concern regarding the venue’s management which posed a risk to the safeguarding of patrons both inside and outside of the venue and the local community.
Two particular incidents on the 4 and 6 September 2021 were highlighted, alongside the non-adherence to the relevant Covid-19 legislative requirements (when in force). The proposed measures by Kent Police were briefly outlined, with the discussion between the applicant and respondents’ representative noted.
PC James Williams and Mr Colin Pope confirmed that they had agreed upon a set of draft conditions, which were outlined to the panel. Mr Harris highlighted several inconsistencies within the proposed conditions; incorrect numbering, that the training requirements had been outlined in more than one condition and to question the necessity of risk assessments for external events when these were to be prohibited. The conditions were amended with the agreement of the applicant’s and respondents’ representatives.
The panel questioned how the venue’s events would be ‘primarily’ sporting events and requested ... view the full minutes text for item 22