Issue - meetings
Application to vary a premise licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for The Zoo, 10 - 11 Market Buildings, Maidstone, Kent , ME14 1HP
Meeting: 02/11/2021 - Licensing Act 2003 Sub Committee (Item 29)
Additional documents:
- 1 & 2 Appendix - Application Form & Current Plan, item 29 PDF 394 KB
- 3 Appendix - Representations, item 29 PDF 195 KB
- 4 Appendix - Current Premise Licence, item 29 PDF 94 KB
- 5 Appendix - CPT reps and solicitors response, item 29 PDF 115 KB View as HTML (29/5) 11 KB
- 6 Appendix - Noise Management Plan 2021 - The Zoo, item 29 PDF 168 KB
- 7 Appendix - CPT withdrawal of reps 13.10.21, item 29 PDF 130 KB View as HTML (29/7) 4 KB
- 8 Appendix - Plan of the area The_Zoo, item 29 PDF 521 KB
- 9 Appendix - Human Rights., item 29 PDF 13 KB View as HTML (29/9) 10 KB
- 10 Appendix - Order of Procedure of New and Variation Hearings, item 29 PDF 139 KB View as HTML (29/10) 38 KB
- NOTICE OF DETERMINATION PREMISES (VARIATION) - Zoo Bar Maidstone, item 29 PDF 121 KB
Minutes:
The persons participating in the hearing were identified as follows:
Chairman – Councillor Garten
Committee Member – Councillor Joy
Committee Member – Councillor Naghi
Legal Advisor (in attendance virtually) – Mr Robin Harris
Democratic Services Officer – Miss Oliviya Parfitt
Applicant – Mr Christopher Dyer
For the applicant:
Mr Stephen Thomas – Solicitor, Miss Rebecca Davis – Assistant Manager and Mr Owen Ranger – Sound Management Consultant.
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 objectors. The Sub-Committee confirmed that they had read the papers and the additional documentation provided by the applicant’s representative.
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 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 legal representative introduced the report and stated that the application submitted by the applicant requested an additional two hours of live or recorded music from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. The application and subsequent notices had been advertised as required.
The objections received were outlined and included in Appendix 3 to the report. The Council’s Community Protection Team had withdrawn their objections due to the conditions agreed with the applicant, as outlined in the report, which addressed the concerns raised.
The applicant’s representative was invited to make their opening statement. The existing premises licence and the variation application submitted were referenced. The applicant had met with the Community Protection Team following receipt of their objections, with four draft conditions agreed in response. The noise management plan was highlighted, with decibel meters having been placed in the premises outside area so that the noise level could be monitored consistently and recorded. These records could be made available to the licensing authority if requested.
In preparation of the application’s submission, the applicant had applied for six Temporary Event Notices which were used from the 24 September 2021. The noise level was set in line with the government’s Covid-19 guidance and no comments or complaints had been received.
Mr Thomas referenced each individual objection received and stated that many of these had been submitted by individuals that were either employees, or personally connected to employees of a neighbouring premises called The Ashes and could have been commercially motivated and vexatious. Mr Thomas further stated that whilst ... view the full minutes text for item 29