Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made in accordance with the Code of Conduct.

The report provides details of a request for a review of a Premises Licence made under s51 of the Licensing Act 2003

The Panel gave consideration to an application for the review of a premises licence in respect of the premises known The Humphrey Bean, 94 High Street, Tonbridge which had been made under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. 

The Panel gave careful consideration to the written report of the Director of Central Services and Deputy Chief Executive, together with the application and written representations received during the statutory consultation period. It also considered the oral representations made to it by the applicant’s representative and other interested parties during the Hearing.  

The Panel was mindful of its obligations under section 52(3) of the Licensing Act 2003, which stated that, having regard to the relevant representations, the Licensing Authority must take such of the steps set out in section 52(4) (if any) as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives. The Panel also had particular regard to the provisions of the amended guidance issued under section 182 of the 2003 Act in April 2018.

The Panel took the following key factors into account in reaching its decision:-

·                  There was a lack of direct evidence linking the complaints of violence, aggression, racism, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour to The Humphrey Bean, Tonbridge, although it was noted that there was clearly a problem with people’s behaviour in the High Street;

·                  None of the Responsible Authorities had complained about the premises;

·                  Kent Police had confirmed that The Humphrey Bean, Tonbridge was a well-run pub which was supportive of all police measures, responsible and took pro-active measures;

·                  Kent Police had confirmed that there was no real link between ‘closing time’ and the incidents reported by the police;

·                  Kent Police was of the view that door staff were very important;

·                  Head of Legal and Company Secretary, JD Wetherspoon PLC had confirmed that the premises had a digital CCTV system and had supervisors as and when they considered appropriate, namely Friday and Saturday evenings and other peak times. Normally there would be two door supervisors but sometimes three or four if management considered it necessary;

·                  The Regional Manager for JD Wetherspoon PLC had confirmed that they had a very experienced staff at the premises and three of them had managed pubs before in their own right.

The Panel came to the conclusion, on the evidence presented, that the most appropriate way to promote the licensing objectives was to keep the premises licence and the conditions attached to it as they were.

The Panel, therefore,

RESOLVED: That no changes be made to the premises licence in respect of the premises known The Humphrey Bean, 94 High Street, Tonbridge.

The Chairman to move that the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting during consideration of any items the publication of which would disclose exempt information

There were no items considered in private.