Licensing Act Sub-Committee - Friday 4 April 2025, 11:00am - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Licensing Act Sub-Committee
Friday, 4th April 2025 at 11:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone A
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Microphone A
  5. Cllr Mike Blakemore
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Gary Fuller
  2. Cllr Mike Blakemore
Share this agenda point
  1. John Bickel
  2. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  3. Microphone C
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Microphone C

Microphone A - 0:00:03
Good morning, we will move to the first item which is the election of the chair. Can I
have any nominations please?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:00:09
I'll propose Councillor Blakemore as chairman.
Happy to second.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:00:12
Microphone A - 0:00:14
Thank you, can I have a show of hands for one in favour?
Thank you, Councillor Blakemore, you've been elected chair, can I ask you to read out the
statement in front of you?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:00:21
Good morning everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Act Subcommittee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or
filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers, and others speaking at the meeting,
it's important that the microphones are used,

1 Election of Chair for the meeting

so viewers on the webcast and others in the room
may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode
as they can be distracting?
I'd like to remind members that although we all
have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
it is important to treat members, officers,
and public speakers with respect.
Thank you.
No apologies for absence.

2 Apologies for absence

Just the number of public and the number of works.
OK.
Thank you.
And any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of interest

None.
None.

4 Application to Vary the Premises Licence in respect of: Old Cigar and Olive, 12-14 Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, CT20 1EZ

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:01:09
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:01:11
OK, so item four, application to vary the premises license
in respect to the old Cigar and Olive 12 to 14 Rondeau
Street, Folkestone CT20 1EZ.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
John Bickel - 0:01:27
This is Report No. DC 2465.
This report outlines the application made by the Old Cigar and Olive Bowl to vary the
existing premises licence for this premises.
The Licensing Act subcommittee must determine the outcome for the application.
The committee is asked to consider the application to vary the premises licence.
When considering the application, the committee must ensure they fully promote the licensing
objectives.
The Committee is obliged to have regard to the revised National Section 182 guidance
and the Council's own licensing policy.
The Licensing Act subcommittee is asked to note the contents of Report DC 2465 and determine
the application.
The options for determining the application are set out in Section 4.
The Licensing Act 2003 provides that the sale or supply of alcohol on and off the premises
and other licensable activities must be authorised by a premises licence. A premises licence
holder must comply with the four licensing objectives, the prevention of crime and disorder,
public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
Old Seagal and Olive has held its current licence with Folkestone and High District
Council since the 11th of June, 2024.
The premises was first licensed in May, 2017.
The current license granted was for supply of alcohol
on sales Monday to Sunday, 11 .30 to 11 .30 p .m.
Late night refreshment, Monday to Sunday, 11 p .m.
till midnight, and the opening hours were from Monday
to Sunday, 9 a .m. till midnight.
and the current premises licence can be seen at Appendix 1.
On the 13th of February 2025, Voodoo Corp Ltd. submitted an application to vary the
premises licence for the Altagon Olive for additional provisions of licenceable activities.
This includes the supply of alcohol for on and off sales Sunday to Wednesday 10am to
30 p .m. Thursday 10 a .m. till 12 30 midnight, 12 30 midnight 30 sorry, Friday and Saturday
10 a .m. till 1 30 a .m. For films it's Sunday to Wednesday 12 midday to 12 midnight, Thursday
12 midday to 1 a .m. and Friday and Saturday 12 midday to 2 a .m. For indoor sporting events
performance of dance and other entertainment involving music or dance, Monday to Wednesday
9am till midnight, Thursday 9am till 1am, Friday and Saturday 9am till 2am and Sunday
10am till midnight.
Live music, recorded music and late night refreshment is Sunday to Wednesday 11pm till
Thursday 11pm to 1am, Friday and Saturday 11pm to 2am, and the opening hours are for
Monday to Wednesday 9am to midnight, Thursday 9am to 1am, Friday and Saturday 9am to 2am,
and Sunday 10am to midnight.
Due to the Live Music Act 2012, live music and recorded music were deregulated and are
not considered licensable activities between 8 a .m. and 11 p .m. where there is an alcohol
license in place.
Therefore, those activities are not shown above.
The application to vary the premises license can be seen at Appendix 2.
This hearing has been required by the Licensing Act 2003 because value representations were
received from two responsible authorities and a member of the public.
Representations can be found at Appendix 3.
Environmental Protection have now withdrawn their representation since this report was
issued.
The Environmental Protection team and the applicant have agreed on amendments and additions
to the operating schedule.
These are distributed by committee services earlier this week.
There is also a proposal for a lobby area to be constructed.
The Licensing Act subcommittee has the following options.
Grant the application to vary the license.
Grant the application with amendments.
Add conditions to the license that are relevant to the variation or reject whole or part of
the application.
The committee is asked to note that it may not add conditions or amend the license merely
because it considers it desirable to do so.
The committee must only consider evidence that relates to the four licensing objectives.
Any conditions added must promote the licensing objectives.
Thank you.
Thank you, John.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:06:22
And we have the first of our speakers.
Good morning.
Microphone C - 0:06:28
My name is Julian Overton.
I am a solicitor and I'm representing the applicant Voodoo Court Limited.
By way of introductions, I'm joined today by the two directors of that company, Melissa
Schofield and Lindsay Thompson, and also by the company's events coordinator and licensing
advisor John Proctor, who sits next to me.
Firstly, if I can address you, just simply on the premises themselves, it's currently
a bar with an emphasis on live music and entertainment.
It's a thriving business.
It's doing extremely well.
It's booked with acts until October this year.
In May, the kitchen will be open and food will be served all day.
The applicant will say that this is not an alcohol -led establishment.
It's a thriving entertainment venue.
It's giving opportunities to up and coming local acts.
They see themselves very much as developing something that's offering a great deal to
the night time.
the Commonwealth of Folkestone.
Full disclosure, there is a smoking area to the side of the building, an outside area
which is relevant to issues of public nuisance that we can come on to.
And there's also a pavement license in effect until 9 p .m. at the front of the building.
Very small area.
In terms of the application itself, you've heard the application is essentially an extension
of hours for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
The motivation for the application is the financial imperative.
It's clear to the applicant that this will make a great deal of benefit to the business
in being open those extended hours.
Now in terms of the existing license, you have heard that that was transferred in June
of last year.
And you can see from the, I think it's page 12 of the agenda item, the current operating
schedule of that license.
And it has to be said, in my respectful opinion,
it's a very thin set of conditions on the current license.
It's not the kind of operating schedule that would be granted today, I would suggest.
There is a real opportunity with this application
to create a much more robust operating schedule
and that would be one of the major benefits of granting this application today
is that this license will have the benefit
of a full operating schedule,
rather than this rather sparse and deficient,
in my opinion, and probably the opinion
of the licensing authority,
deficient operating schedule in the current license.
That's not the applicant's fault.
They simply transfer the license.
But it would benefit all parties
to have a much more robust and tailored
and relevant set of conditions
that actively and effectively deal with
the licensing objectives for this premises.
You'll see that progress has been made in that regard, again in the bundle.
I think on page, I forget which page it is, but it's Annex 2.
Has the proposed operating schedule conditions.
Most of these conditions I think will be very familiar to them because they are lifted by
from the model conditions present in the local authorities policy and also fully compliant
with the code of practice.
And a word about how they came about.
The applicants in making this application reached out to licensing and the police and
in fact met with them at the premises.
and that operating schedule was designed
through a joint process with those.
So a good example of consultation in process.
These effectively are the licensing authority
and the police's desired conditions,
dealing with all of the licensing objectives
and specifically crime and disorder
in respect to the police.
So, so far so good.
Another thing the applicant did
prior to making this application
was run a number of tens.
to test the water, so to speak, in this extension of hours.
And the Thames was a highly valuable experience for them
because they learnt a great deal from it.
They can't pretend it went without incident,
and you have two representations in front of you,
perhaps representative of that.
But it has been a positive learning experience
for the applicant.
It's resulted in a number of things,
perhaps not evident from the conditions that you've seen.
Firstly, the applicant bought a sound meter and has spent a great deal of time measuring
and monitoring sound levels in and outside the building and recording them.
Very interesting dialogue that I had with Environmental Health this week about those
sound levels that they decided that's not something that should be conditioned, but
they recognize and welcome the fact that the applicant is monitoring those levels and taking
a proactive stance in that regard.
The other thing that's come out of this TEN history is the applicant's decision to build
additional lobby doors.
This is another additional set of doors to reduce the volume when people are entering
and leaving the building.
Again, this has been discussed with Environmental Health this week.
they don't think that it's appropriate that that be a condition,
but they did ask for an undertaking from the applicant
that that be built within 12 weeks,
and the applicant has agreed to that,
and indeed I've seen the doors in question.
They are to be fitted.
So that's an important thing that's come out of this history of operating
under temporary events notices.
The other thing that's happened,
there was again dialogue with the local authority
about a particular act on one of these occasions,
and as a result of that, the applicant
has decided not to book that act again
and to review many of the acts that they are doing.
So a really helpful experience for them, I think,
and a positive experience through that series
of temporary events notices.
I think around seven in total.
There was a handful of them that resulted in issues.
But on all of those occasions, it's
clear that where the applicant was approached
on those conditions that they acted responsibly and tried to resolve them.
You've heard that there was dialogue with environmental health this week and the additional
conditions that were agreed as a result of that withdrew their representation.
So I think what we have, in my submission, we've got an opportunity for a relevant, robust
operating schedule, effectively being written by licensing police and environmental health.
We've got this track record and we've got evidence of the applicants
learning from that and working in a positive way to try and deal with issues.
Now the issue is public nuisance, it's about noise from the premises.
I suggest there's two sources of this.
One is the music itself and the other is patrons in the external areas.
and the conditions that we've agreed with environmental health address both of those.
So firstly, a condition to have a direct telephone number
so that anyone in the locality can contact management immediately.
Two consequences of that.
One is that management can respond to those complaints immediately
if there is excessive noise.
But also when it's coupled with other conditions in this operating schedule
of the requirement for them to record noise complaints,
it means that that will just be constantly monitored and dealt with.
We did discuss with Environmental Health, we offered,
and you'll see that in the application,
that there is an offer to reduce sound levels by each hour from 11pm.
And also, there was an offer to maintain particular sound decibel levels.
Environmental Health did not think that was appropriate to be conditioned,
but they welcomed the applicant's proactive and positive stance on that.
In terms of patrons outside of the building,
you'll see that on these agreed additional conditions,
there are restrictions on when the outside areas are open,
the numbers of people who can be in those areas
and the fact that no drinks can be consumed there
and the fact that all of this smoking area
has to be closed an hour before the terminal hour.
So, those are the conditions of grieving environmental health that address both of those issues.
There are representations from a local resident.
Unfortunately, he's not here, but the applicant welcomes dialogue with him.
I know there's representation from planning, also not here.
They make a comment about the time.
And my response to that is that it does rather appear as though it was a blanket approach
that the Times suggested was too late.
And obviously you'll know that we have to look at the application on its own merits,
and we have to look at conditions that apply to these specific premises.
And in my submission, the experts in all of these matters have been consulted and have
dealt with and they're the people that we should be relying on.
So in conclusion, there's an opportunity to regulate better this license than under the
current deficient license and system of temporary events notices.
So in granting this application, I think the licensing authority will feel that there is
a much more robust, manageable, and enforceable contract
with the applicant than is currently the case.
There's been a lot of positive consultation, which
should give comfort in that the agreed conditions are
those that have come from the responsible authorities,
but also plenty of evidence of the applicant
being positive and proactive throughout that.
There's the additional commitment
to soundproof those lobby doors, which is a commitment, but not a condition.
And I think overall, because of that, because of the process, that you can and you should
grant this application.
Thank you very much for that.
Any questions?
Thank you, Ash.
Well, I was reading this, coming here today, and one of the things that I wanted to ask
about was about temporary event notifications.
Because the inference from the representative
from the local residents suggested
there were a couple of dates.
So again, my question on that, you've answered.
So you're saying there were seven of them.
My question is, so why did it take seven temporary event
notifications for you to learn the lessons that you have done?
Why did you not stop requesting temporary event notifications
if you knew you were having difficulties with maintaining
the noise from patrons, the noise from the venue,
but you carried on asking for temporary event notifications
when you knew there was a problem.
I accept what you're saying in terms of you have to test the water
and you have to understand what the impact is going to be,
but did it really take seven of those for you to get all that information together
before you actually took action.
So that's my question.
Thank you, it's a good question.
I think one of the responses that really came out
of the consultation with Environmental Health this week,
and it said no criticism to them,
but the applicant didn't know about a number of these complaints
and issues that had been made.
So for example, one of the complaints we heard about for the first time
from the, I believe, from the gentleman
who made the representation.
Environmental Health were able to explain to us
that they'd been called at 11, at 12 .30,
and they attended the address,
took a sound level reading,
decided that the sound was not excessive,
and took no further action.
Now, they didn't tell the applicant about that,
and that was on the 23rd of March.
And also, the other incident that you've heard about mentioned in the representation is the 4th of March.
So the other answer to this question is that these incidents have both happened very recently.
They happened in March, the two referred to there.
There was a single other prior incident last year, but that was the instance I referred to
where there was some liaison with the local authority and the artist was effectively not to play at that venue anymore.
So I think in answer to your question, there has been action taken,
as with these tens,
and the two incidents that seem most pertinent happened in March.
So just in terms of public nuisance and noise nuisance,
I think it's great that a sound meter's been purchased
and they're monitoring that.
One of the things that we have seen from other applicants of similar types of venues, and
there was one relatively recently, where they actually got a professional assessment of
the sound emanating or that could emanate from the building.
So I'm just wondering why, bearing in mind the information that we had prior to this
We only learned today that the environmental withdrawal
may have changed.
So when that information was had,
I would expect that a professional assessment
of noise would have been carried out
to help to support your mitigation,
that the actions that you're taking with regard
to the change of the doors and the various other things
are actually going to achieve what you're expecting to achieve.
Because at the moment it'll be based purely on the sound measurements
that your clients are going to make,
without being underpinned by a professional review of that.
So if you could answer that.
Yeah, of course. Initially there's a cost to that.
I think is the obvious point.
But I also think that the conditions reached to
on the basis of the environmental protections professional advice.
We know that Home Office guidance tells us that each responsible authority would be an
expert in their respective field.
So I think that those conditions arrived at are effective.
I think with any licensed condition there is a sense of trying to address issues in
in a proportionate way that one hopes will work.
It may be sometimes that they don't altogether work,
but I think this license and this application
is robust enough because the dialogue is there
with environmental health.
The direct telephone number is there.
The mitigating conditions one hopes will work,
but if they don't work, that's not the end of the contract.
There remains protection for everyone in terms of noise.
This is not the end of the story.
There is, for example, there was this week
there's been dialogue about a noise limiter.
Now, my clients think that the price of that
is prohibited for them and in fairness,
environmental health agreed.
But if these matters in front of you
did not have the desired effect,
that is not the end of the story,
because there are further mitigating factors
that could be introduced if they are required.
And my clients have acted in a way throughout this
that when they've been given information about this,
they, about any of these issues or potential problems,
that they've reacted and tried to deal with them
as positively as they can.
So you've answered my next question, actually,
because I was going to say,
have you considered putting a limiter in there,
which is quite a standard piece of equipment,
you'll find there's lots of pubs,
there's lots of venues in this area
across the whole of the district
to have those things fitted that will automatically
terminate the loud noise if it hits that particular level.
And you have to do something about it there and then.
So I think you've answered that.
But again, just in terms of the commitment
from your clients, I think the residents
would expect us to say, why would we not insist
on something like that being installed,
and maybe then there would never be an issue
at any time in the future with regard to that.
So I think you've answered, you've answered that.
It's simply a question of cost,
and I know that again within the,
within the Home Office guidance,
it talks about noise limiters specifically,
and how they're a considerable burden for smaller venues.
if this venue needs to have one of these,
and it will get one.
But at this stage, I think the consensus is that
the conditions that are proposed and agreed
have been discussed are proportionate
to the issues that have happened
or perceived issues that might happen for this venue.
So can we please explore that a little bit more?
Because again, I think, just in terms of
planning's representation here,
Yes.
So planning's representation is very much
about the position of this venue in a residential area
and public nuisance in the form of noise.
And you've said where that comes from.
The patrons who are using outside areas
and the emanating itself.
Again, their view is that this could result in harm.
That if they were dealing with this from scratch,
they may well be considering additional noise mitigations if it was related to a planning
condition, for example, which is where they're coming from.
So it just seems to me, how far do your clients want to go with making sure that this isn't
going to be an issue for the future, bearing in mind that they've only been operating under
the current conditions and current license since June last year.
So they've got some experience.
They've got experience from the tens.
You've got experience here and feedback from residents
and from environmental health about noise.
So it just seems that maybe something like a noise limiter
or something of that nature would be a mitigation, which
could be seen to be a reasonable thing to request.
That was all.
I entirely agree.
I can't confess that I've had the opportunity
to actually go to this area, although I planted today.
I'm not sure it could be described as a residential area.
I think there are residents there,
but I think it's a mixed -use area
rather than a residential area.
I'll be correct if I'm wrong about that.
All I can say on the noise -limiter
is that, I think I've made the point,
it's about a proportionate response
to the perceived issues so far.
Environmental health,
I arranged this with them, they had sympathy and did not request that that be a condition
imposed in the operating schedule.
Just in terms of the layouts that we've got as part of the application, the first license,
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:27:15
go back to 2017, we've got a drawing there which shows what the arrangement was in 2017.
What we're looking at here on page 27 are these two drawings here.
So it does show some of what you've said to us about putting the kitchen in for example.
But it also shows the basement area which wasn't included on the original diagram.
So this is an extended use of the area within the building which is over and above that which was in the original licence.
Is that correct?
Microphone C - 0:28:01
Thank you for the additional time.
The public that have access to that area, certainly not at the moment, I think marked
on the plan are elements of storage and so on.
If I could just correct you on that.
It actually says games members area in the basement on this diagram here,
which is one of the drawings that we've got attached to the additional licence.
I think that's an element that's certainly not in use now.
There's no access to the public now.
I think this is an element of future proofing, I think,
for future plans to perhaps use that in a limited capacity, but not now.
So the basement area is not going to be a publicly used area at all?
No, it may be in the future.
I think what they're taking is an opportunity with this license to cover this area so that
they could use it in the future, but they're not using it now and there are no immediate
plans to use it.
Does that understand it?
Okay.
I had one question.
You mentioned a couple of times about an artist
that wasn't going to be hired again
because of the problems.
I'm just interested in what's led you to say that.
What was the particular problem there?
I think we would, again I'll check,
but I think the difficulties with the artist
that just wasn't cooperative with the staff
and you felt that it was a representation
for licensing I think in respect to that particular evening.
And I think my understanding is that the artist was just not cooperative
with the operators, with management as to how they would work and what they would do
and they didn't feel as though they could trust them and they were too noisy.
I don't think so. I'll do it that way.
I think that's the answer. Is that the answer?
Basically it was the same check and it was too loud.
There's a stone check and there's a take the meat stone check and they took the meat.
We had a resident come in kicking off and our ex -partner was there and she was like,
so you're closing it, doesn't that help them out?
That resident went away, met his mate, he was the very first one.
And then obviously since then we were like, sorry mate, you're not coming back, you're not for us,
you're causing us more grief than what you should be, you're not following our guidelines,
We asked you to turn it down, we told you to turn it down, and we didn't.
So, you're not welcome.
Thank you. My question was more about the introduction of off -sales actually, to the license.
I noticed in the operating schedule mention of online orders.
Is that something that you're looking to introduce?
And if so, working on Sanghare High Street, as I do,
I'm very much aware of the steady flow of cars coming in,
picking up, and various things dropping off.
If that is going to be the case, have you
thought about how you're going to ensure
that there isn't additional noise nuisance,
or potential noise nuisance, I should say,
from that aspect of the business?
because obviously in normal health,
having brought it up here,
but it does appear to be a new aspect of the business.
Again, I think it falls under this category of future -proofing.
As of yet, there is no kitchen.
The kitchen will be placed in May.
The plan is to serve food on the premises until the early evening.
There are no immediate plans to do any off -sales
or deliveries of that nature,
but they feel as though, as they're varying the licence at this time,
that they should take the opportunity to do that
because they might do it in the future,
but there are absolutely no immediate plans
to do that at all.
I think the other perhaps motivation on the off sales
is partly linked to this small payment license
outside area and the confusion over the Business
and Planning Act.
I think applying for off sales is increasingly common
for that and I think that is the only,
in the immediate future, that is the only part
of that application that will be used.
Just coming back to the game and members area, in the schedule you do state that the indoor
sporting events, standard days and timings, is part of the revised application that you're
So you're saying that's future proofing it?
I mean, I have to say, I didn't do the application was done by the applicants without advice,
and I think it's often common to see in those circumstances every form of regulated entertainment
applied for on the basis that there's not always a clear understanding of what that covers
and what it doesn't cover and just giving them opportunities in the future.
If I could, just to satisfy myself then, one of the other things that's being asked for
is films.
So where in the premises are you proposing to show the films?
I think I have shown the films there.
That is in the ground floor behind the stage area.
There is a screen along that wall.
It's just not clear from the application.
I understand.
Of course.
Any other questions?
Okay, and we haven't got anybody else.
We'll take a few minutes to discuss among ourselves
and then come back to you.
Thank you.

4 Application to Vary the Premises Licence in respect of: Old Cigar and Olive, 12-14 Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, CT20 1EZ

Right, thank you very much for your patience.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:34:19
We've been carefully considering the application.
You'll be pleased to hear that we are minded to agree the application with the additional
conditions from the Environmental Protection Team and the schedule as set out.
However, we are imposing a couple of additional conditions, one being that there'll be no
admission to patrons less than 90 minutes before closing time on Fridays, sorry on Thursdays,
Fridays and Saturdays and also that no person should be allowed in the outside areas after
midnight. The full reasons for our decision will be circulated to you later. Thank you.