The Assistant Licensing Manager updated Members that since the last Committee meeting on 11 November 2023, four licensing panel hearings had taken place.

·        11 December 2023 - New Premises Licence - Dover Local, 44 Dover Road East, Gravesend:

Decision - The panel were satisfied with the objections raised could be allayed by the reduction in hours on the Friday and Saturday.

·        3 April 2024 - New Premises Licence – Dizz Hubb, Ebbsfleet Rainbow Centre, Rose Street, Northfleet:

Decision - The panel decided to reduce the opening hours to 8am until midnight every day at both venues with Kent Police and licensing conditions added.  There was also an additional condition set for sound proofing.

·        13 June 2024 - Review of the premises licence - Kings News and Wine, 21C King Street, Gravesend:

Decision – The panel decided to revoke the licence as no conditions could be imposed to ensure that the objectives could be upheld.  The decision has been appealed to the Magistrates’ Court by the licence holder. The first legal hearing would take place on 18 October 2024.  Due to the appeal the premises were legally able to trade until the final decision by the Magistrates’ court.

·        21 June 2024 – Full variation of premises licence – The Page, 1-2 Parrock Street, Gravesend:

Decision – The panel decided to grant the variation but with some amendments – the licensable hours for live music, recorded music, sale of alcohol and late-night refreshments were altered. The overall opening hours of the premises were amended also.  Conditions were added to stipulate that the rear garden closed at midnight with the clear up beginning at 11.30pm.  The was also a requirement for door supervisors to be on duty on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday until closing.

The Chair thanked Members for their time during the recent panel hearings and invited any comments.

There was confusion regarding the Dizz Hubb application, as Members understood that Planning Permission had not been granted for the required use.  The Assistant Licensing Manager explained that although this may have been the case, planning and licensing were separate regimes.  The only way planning would be involved would be if they submitted a representation relating to one of the licensing applications, which was not received.  It was noted that anything approved by Licensing did not supersede planning law, so would not be able to carry out the activities applied for, if the necessary planning permission was not in place.

Clarification was sought regarding the appeal process in relation to the Kings News and Wine hearing.  The Assistant Licensing Manager explained that once a decision was made at a panel hearing the applicant or objector had 21 days to appeal to the Magistrates’ court.  If the appeal took place within the 21 days, the outcome of the hearing would not take effect and would be determined by the outcome of the Magistrates’ court hearing.

Members discussed the case of Kings New and Wine in some depth:

·        Members were disappointed to hear that Kings News and Wine were permitted to continue trading until the decision of the Magistrates’ court but understood the legal position. It was felt that Members should lobby the MP for a change in licensing law, to prevent trading during the appeal period when a licence had been revoked, especially considering the current wait time for Magistrates’ hearings. 

·        In order to ensure a robust case was put forward to the Magistrate, Members requested that the best legal officers be present at the hearing as there was concern that potentially losing the case sent a poor message to others and undermined the work of the licensing authority.  The Head of Community Protection explained that the Magistrates’ hearing was set in statute and would be dealt with under the expertise of the legal team.  He would pass on the message to the legal team, expressing the importance of this case.

·        Members queried how many visits the licensing team had been carried out to ensure Kings News and Wine were not continuing to breach the conditions.  The Assistant Licensing Manager updated that the licensing team had visited twice since and would continue to check.

·        Members asked whether an injunction was possible to stop trading whilst waiting for the Magistrates’ hearing.  The Head of Community Safety advised that he was not speaking on behalf of the legal team, but he believed it would not be appropriate or viable.

·        The Committee wondered, if it was noted that the premises were still breaching the licensing law prior to the hearing, if further action could be taken.  The Head of Community Safety advised that if there was any new evidence, legal advice would be sought, to see if any additional options were available.

·        Members all agreed that the Magistrates’ case would be strengthened by having Members of the panel present at the hearing, to relay why the licence was revoked.  The Chair agreed and suggested having the case as an agenda item at the next Licensing Committee meeting to discuss in greater depth.