- \n
- Attendance Details \n\t\t\t
- \nAgenda Frontsheet\n\t\t\t
![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\")
PDF 79 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n\t\t\t\t - Agenda reports pack\n PDF 18 MB \n\n\t\t\t\t
- \nPrinted minutes\n PDF 73 KB \n\t\t \n\n
Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Nick Hughes \n\t\t01227 862 005\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\nItems\n\t\t\nNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tApologies for absence
\nMinutes:
\nThere were no apologies for absence.
\nDeclaration of any Interests by Members or Officers
\nMinutes:
\nDavid Stevenson declared a personal interest\nin Item 5, premises licence for Jolly Chef.
\n\n
Pauline Goldsack declared a personal interest\nin item 6, premises licence Anchor Bar as she had worked with Mr\nStewart in the past.
\nTO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the\nmeeting of the Sub-Committees held on 17 February, 18 February, 25\nFebruary and 20 March 2009.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe minutes of the meetings of the Licensing\nSub-Committees on the 17, 18 and 25 February and the 20 March were\napproved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
\nLicensing Act 2003 - Premises Licence for Jolly Chef PDF 3 MB
\nTo CONSIDER
\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman of the Sub-Committee introduced\nthose present and the Senior Licensing Officer outlined the\napplication in front of the panel. He explained that the\napplication was for opening hours Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 14:00\nand then 17:00 to midnight and late night refreshment Monday to\nSaturday between 23:00 and midnight.
\n\n
Mr Stewart, the applicants legal\nrepresentative explained that the premises had received planning\npermission in 2007 and had opened in February 2009. The premises\nwere run by an experienced Chinese restaurant operator. The\nmajority of trade was for deliveries, the car used for making\ndeliveries was parked in the car park of the Swan Public House when\nit was not in use.
\n\n
The Premises had the latest ventilation system\nfitted and regularly cleaned the outside of the property. There\nwould be no alcohol served and there was no intention to sell\nalcohol in the future.
\n\n
In response to Members questions Mr Stewart\nconfirmed that they did not want outside refreshment. Mr Stevenson\nconfirmed that the application needed to include outside\nrefreshment in order to allow off sales. He also confirmed that the\ndelivery vehicle used was a car.
\n\n
The Sub-Committee then adjourned to make a\ndecision on the application. The Deputy Head of Legal Services\naccompanied them to help frame their decision. In making their decision they had\ndue regard to the Licensing Act 2003, government guidance and the\nlicensing objectives.
\n\n
RESOLVED –
\n\n
That a premises licence be granted for Jolly\nChef, 10 High Street, Sturry, Canterbury as follows:
\n\n
Hours open to the\npublic
\n\n
Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 14:00 then 17:00\nto midnight
\n\n
Late night\nrefreshment
\n\n
Monday to Saturday 23:00 to midnight
\nLicensing Act 2003 - Premises Licence Anchor Bar PDF 5 MB
\nTo CONSIDER
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman of the Licensing Sub Committee\nintroduced the hearing and those present. Mr Stevenson explained\nthat the hearing was for a new grant of an existing licence.
\n\n
The Chairman explained that she was allowing\nthose objections from residents of Kite Farm and the adjoining road\nas the rest were not in the vicinity of the premises.
\n\n
The applicants legal advisor Mr Flack\nexplained that the application was for the same hours as the\ncurrent licence, however as the licensed area was being replaced a\nnew licence was required.
\n\n
He explained that the premises operated a\nChallenge 21 policy and acknowledged and accepted the suggested\nconditions of the Environmental Health Department that there would\nbe no more than 10 outdoor amplified events per year and that doors\nand windows would be closed after 23:00 except for entrance and\negress.
\n\n
There were also a number of wardens that\npatrolled the park to ensure that non – residents did not\naccess the site and that patrons to the bar dispersed in to the\npark quietly.
\n\n
He confirmed in response to Members questions\nthat the wardens operated between 8pm and 2am in the high season\nand the park was open for approximately 10 ½ months a year.\nAll users of the bar needed a pass to be served and all bar staffed\nchecked the passed before serving customers.
\n\n
He also confirmed that less than 1% of the\nusers were not caravan owners, guests or campers. The park did not\nencourage use of its facilities by local groups or residents,\nhowever they did consider a few events for residents and their\nfriends. There was only one bar and it was not advisable for them\nto hire the only bar out and prevent their guests from using\nit.
\n\n
There was CCTV inside the bar and in the\noffice next to the entrance. He also confirmed that the entrance\nbarrier could only be raised by keycard.
\n\n
The applicant’s legal representative\nconfirmed that the applicant was happy to include a condition that\nstated that the park was not open to the general public.
\n\n
The applicant’s legal advisor then\nresponded to questions from interested parties. He explained that\nhe believed that the notices showing the licensable activities on\nthe premises in the future application were advertised at the\nappropriate access and exit points. He added that six notices had\nbeen used and two had been appended to the entrance of the\nproperty.
\n\n
The Senior Licensing Officer explained that\nthere was no legal requirement regarding the content of the notice.\nIn addition the interested party would have to provide evidence\nthat the notices were not positioned correctly. He also explained\nthat the near neighbour letter was not mandatory and that the\napplication had been available for inspection at the Council\nOffices, however it had only been inspected once, the day before\nthe hearing.
\n\n
The Applicants legal advisor explained to\nthose people making representations that the application would not\nallow for any more guests or for any further hours than\n ... \nview the full minutes text for item 12.
\n PDF 79 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t PDF 18 MB PDF 73 KB \n\t\t Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Nick Hughes \n\t\t01227 862 005\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Apologies for absence \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThere were no apologies for absence. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declaration of any Interests by Members or Officers \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nDavid Stevenson declared a personal interest\nin Item 5, premises licence for Jolly Chef. \n\n Pauline Goldsack declared a personal interest\nin item 6, premises licence Anchor Bar as she had worked with Mr\nStewart in the past. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n \n\n \nTO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the\nmeeting of the Sub-Committees held on 17 February, 18 February, 25\nFebruary and 20 March 2009. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe minutes of the meetings of the Licensing\nSub-Committees on the 17, 18 and 25 February and the 20 March were\napproved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Licensing Act 2003 - Premises Licence for Jolly Chef \n \n\n \nTo CONSIDER \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Chairman of the Sub-Committee introduced\nthose present and the Senior Licensing Officer outlined the\napplication in front of the panel. He explained that the\napplication was for opening hours Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 14:00\nand then 17:00 to midnight and late night refreshment Monday to\nSaturday between 23:00 and midnight. \n\n Mr Stewart, the applicants legal\nrepresentative explained that the premises had received planning\npermission in 2007 and had opened in February 2009. The premises\nwere run by an experienced Chinese restaurant operator. The\nmajority of trade was for deliveries, the car used for making\ndeliveries was parked in the car park of the Swan Public House when\nit was not in use. \n\n The Premises had the latest ventilation system\nfitted and regularly cleaned the outside of the property. There\nwould be no alcohol served and there was no intention to sell\nalcohol in the future. \n\n In response to Members questions Mr Stewart\nconfirmed that they did not want outside refreshment. Mr Stevenson\nconfirmed that the application needed to include outside\nrefreshment in order to allow off sales. He also confirmed that the\ndelivery vehicle used was a car. \n\n The Sub-Committee then adjourned to make a\ndecision on the application. The Deputy Head of Legal Services\naccompanied them to help frame their decision. In making their decision they had\ndue regard to the Licensing Act 2003, government guidance and the\nlicensing objectives. \n\n RESOLVED – \n\n That a premises licence be granted for Jolly\nChef, 10 High Street, Sturry, Canterbury as follows: \n\n Hours open to the\npublic \n\n Monday to Saturday 12:00 to 14:00 then 17:00\nto midnight \n\n Late night\nrefreshment \n\n Monday to Saturday 23:00 to midnight \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Licensing Act 2003 - Premises Licence Anchor Bar \n \n\n \nTo CONSIDER \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Chairman of the Licensing Sub Committee\nintroduced the hearing and those present. Mr Stevenson explained\nthat the hearing was for a new grant of an existing licence. \n\n The Chairman explained that she was allowing\nthose objections from residents of Kite Farm and the adjoining road\nas the rest were not in the vicinity of the premises. \n\n The applicants legal advisor Mr Flack\nexplained that the application was for the same hours as the\ncurrent licence, however as the licensed area was being replaced a\nnew licence was required. \n\n He explained that the premises operated a\nChallenge 21 policy and acknowledged and accepted the suggested\nconditions of the Environmental Health Department that there would\nbe no more than 10 outdoor amplified events per year and that doors\nand windows would be closed after 23:00 except for entrance and\negress. \n\n There were also a number of wardens that\npatrolled the park to ensure that non – residents did not\naccess the site and that patrons to the bar dispersed in to the\npark quietly. \n\n He confirmed in response to Members questions\nthat the wardens operated between 8pm and 2am in the high season\nand the park was open for approximately 10 ½ months a year.\nAll users of the bar needed a pass to be served and all bar staffed\nchecked the passed before serving customers. \n\n He also confirmed that less than 1% of the\nusers were not caravan owners, guests or campers. The park did not\nencourage use of its facilities by local groups or residents,\nhowever they did consider a few events for residents and their\nfriends. There was only one bar and it was not advisable for them\nto hire the only bar out and prevent their guests from using\nit. \n\n There was CCTV inside the bar and in the\noffice next to the entrance. He also confirmed that the entrance\nbarrier could only be raised by keycard. \n\n The applicant’s legal representative\nconfirmed that the applicant was happy to include a condition that\nstated that the park was not open to the general public. \n\n The applicant’s legal advisor then\nresponded to questions from interested parties. He explained that\nhe believed that the notices showing the licensable activities on\nthe premises in the future application were advertised at the\nappropriate access and exit points. He added that six notices had\nbeen used and two had been appended to the entrance of the\nproperty. \n\n The Senior Licensing Officer explained that\nthere was no legal requirement regarding the content of the notice.\nIn addition the interested party would have to provide evidence\nthat the notices were not positioned correctly. He also explained\nthat the near neighbour letter was not mandatory and that the\napplication had been available for inspection at the Council\nOffices, however it had only been inspected once, the day before\nthe hearing. \n\n The Applicants legal advisor explained to\nthose people making representations that the application would not\nallow for any more guests or for any further hours than\n ... \nview the full minutes text for item 12. \n | \n\t\t