Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form 

There were no declarations of interest.

Report to follow.

Alison Brock, Technical Support Manager, introduced the report and made the following points:

·  Thanet District Council in its capacity as the Licensing Authority, received a premises licence review request from Kent Police on 5th July 2024. As a result, an expedited hearing was held on 9 July 2024;

·  Following the hearing on 9 July 2024, a number of interim steps were agreed;

·  This Sub-Committee hearing acted as a full review of the licence for Dreamland Margate, which was required under Section 53A of the Licencing Act and within the 28 days of the receipt of the initial application;

·  A number of representations were received from the public following the notice of review, with one person asking to speak at this Sub-Committee hearing;

·  Representations were in attendance representing Kent Police, Dreamland Margate and the Licensing Authority (Thanet District Council);

·  Recommendations were submitted by the representations from Dreamland Margate;

Mark Davies, Barrister on the behalf of Kent Police spoke and made the following points:

·  On the behalf of Kent Police, Mr Davies offered his condolences to the people affected by the incident that occurred at Dreamland on 29 June 2024, during a drum and bass night, featuring the band Worried About Henry, including the family of Emily Stokes and the 21 other patients admitted into hospital due to drug overdose symptoms;

·  Kent Police still had an active investigation into the incident ongoing as of the time of this Sub-Committee meeting;

·  He reminded the room that there was always planned to be a licence review of Dreamland Margate carried out in July 2024, prior to the incident on 29th June 2024;

·  The agreed recommendations were provided by both Dreamland Margate and Kent Police as a joint agreement. The Councillors were reminded that although the recommendations was agreed, that it should not take away from the seriousness of the situation and that they acted as a proportionate means to address the issues raised;

Asitha Ranatunga, Barrister on the behalf of Thanet District Council spoke and made the following points:

·  He also reiterated the sentiments from Kent Police regarding the seriousness of the incident that took place on 29 June 2024;

·  The Licensing Authority’s top concern with the licensing conditions and objectives was primarily concerning the prevention of crime and disorder as well as protecting members of the public, especially children from any potential harm;

·  It was explained that a revised conditions list was decided through a safety advisory group (SAG) process, which included the joint undertaking of the licensing authority and the other parties involved, with the goal of ensuring incidents like this did not repeat;

·  When an event was considered “high-risk”, in accordance with the risk assessment matrix, a number of documents including event risk assessments and an event management plan needed to be considered, with one criteria being considered was whether or not the event is for over 18s only;

·  Condition 3 was highlighted, specifically section 3C, which meant that an event management plan must be submitted for these events;

·  Condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Report to follow

This item was discussed in conjunction with Item 3 as part of the public section of the hearing.

Report to follow.

Councillor Rogers proposed, Councillor Huxley seconded and members agreed:

That the public and press be excluded from the meeting on agenda item 6 and 7 as they contain exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Confidential documents to follow

Mr Davies spoke regarding the restricted items.

Mr Ranatunga, spoke regarding the restricted items.

Mr Kolvin spoke regarding the restricted items.

Following the discussion, representatives of Kent Police, Dreamland Margate and the Licensing Authority were asked to leave the room whilst the Board deliberated.

Once the Board came to a decision, representatives of Kent Police, Dreamland Margate and the Licensing Authority were invited back into the meeting room and Mr Hodkinson, Interim Senior Litigation Lawyer addressed the meeting and read out the Board decision which was as detailed below:

“The Sub-Committee has considered the evidence presented by way of written

representations, oral representations at the hearing and answers in response to questions.

The Sub-Committee has had regard to the licensing objectives, the statement of licensing policy, the Section 182 guidance and the Summary Review guidance.

The Sub-Committee has conducted the review as a full review of the licence,

acknowledging that the process was originally started under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003.

In turn this means that the Sub-Committee is obliged to consider the evidence in the context of all four licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee is required to consider whether the evidence presented suggests that one or more of the licensing objectives are being undermined.

In this context the Sub-Committee bear in mind that they are entitled to view Kent Police and Environmental Health as sources of advice in respect of crime and disorder and public nuisance respectively.

With regard to crime and disorder the Sub-Committee accepts that incidents of crime or disorder have occurred. In particular on the 29th June 2024, there was an event after which one person died, one person was placed in an induced coma, and 21 others received hospital attention as a result of ingesting drugs.

Also, although the event was “high risk”, under-18s were admitted. These incidents alone would warrant, in the Sub-Committee’s view, a summary review under Section 53A of the Licensing Act 2003.

In the context of noise nuisance, the Sub-Committee noted the evidence of Mr Moss. Although Mr Moss was clearly aggrieved, the Sub-Committee did not have the benefit of precise sound measurements from him. However, the Sub-Committee notes there have been a number of complaints, justifying the Sub-Committee finding that there is reason to believe that the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance is being undermined.

However, the Sub-Committee is required in both contexts to consider whether or not conditions would remedy this.

In that context, the Sub-Committee noted again that it is entitled to look to Environmental Health and Kent Police as sources of advice in their capacity as responsible Authorities.

The Sub-Committee has been presented with a set of agreed conditions, in the document headed “Dreamland – LSC Hearing 24th July 2024 – Revised Proposed Conditions”, that is to say conditions agreed by Kent Police, Dreamland Margate and Thanet District Council.

In addition, Mr Kolvin proposed on behalf of Dreamland Margate and in response to a question from the Sub-Committee, an additional condition to be listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Confidential document to follow

This item was discussed in conjunction with Item 6 as part of the restricted section of the hearing.