Agenda item

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 at 3C (XIV), to read: “Event management will have to specifically cover boundary security”.

Given that the above conditions are agreed (save for that suggested by Mr Kolvin) and supported by Kent Police, Dreamland Margate and Environmental Health, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that these conditions (with the inclusion of that suggested by Mr Kolvin) will effectively address those matters that have been aired at this review and have been of concern to the Sub-Committee.

Further, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that in the context, these conditions are proportionate.

The Sub-Committee notes in particular the cooperation Dreamland Margate has given to the responsible authorities, in particular, to Kent Police.

The decision of the Sub-Committee is to amend the licence to include the agreed conditions and including that suggested by Mr Kolvin.

In addition, the Sub-Committee impose the aforementioned conditions as interim measures, pending expiry of the time for appeal or the determination of any such appeal.

These interim measures will replace any previous conditions imposed as interim steps.”