Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone

Contact: Committee Services  01622 602899

Items
No. Item

15.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies.

16.

Notification of Substitute Members

Minutes:

There were no Substitute Members.

17.

Election of the Chairman

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That Councillor Springett be elected as Chair for the duration of the meeting.

18.

Disclosures by Members and Officers

Minutes:

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

19.

Disclosures of Lobbying

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

20.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING

Minutes:

The Chair stated that the meeting would be adjourned to allow the applicant and respondents’ representative to further discuss the licensing conditions proposed by the former.

 

The meeting was initially adjourned between 12.02 p.m. to 12.35 p.m., which was then extended from 12.35 p.m. to 1 p.m.

21.

EXEMPT ITEMS

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That all items be taken in public as proposed.

22.

Application for Review of a Premises Licence for Century Club, 30-32 Lower Stone Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6LX, pdf icon PDF 244 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.