Agenda and minutes

(1)       The Members of the Panel had visited the site prior to the meeting in order to familiarise themselves with its location.  This visit was attended by the applicant, Mr D Chapman.

(2)       The Chairman notified the meeting that late correspondence had been received from neighbouring residents, Mr and Mrs Mather.  The Chairman ruled that as this correspondence was both very late and not pertinent to the matter in hand, it would not be considered by the Panel. He offered Mr Chapman (as a courtesy) the opportunity to comment on this correspondence.  The latter strongly questioned the accuracy of the statements contained within it – particularly stressing that Mr and Mrs Mather could not have been disturbed at 11pm on a Sunday evening as the premises was never in use at that time.  He also confirmed that the premises was not for sale.

(3)       Mr H J Craske informed the Panel that he had in the past conducted marriage ceremonies at the Lost Village of Dode in his former professional capacity.  This did not constitute either a personal or prejudicial interest, and he was able to approach the determination of the application with a completely open mind.

(4)       The Chairman informed the meeting that the Local Member, Mrs S V Hohler had sent her apologies.  He asked the Panel to note the content of her letter set out in the Appendix  to the report.

(5)       The Marketing and Licensing Manager introduced the report and asked the Panel to note that the date given in paragraph 7.3 of the report as “30 September” should read “31 October.”

(6)       The Marketing and Licensing Manager then said that the applicant had asked for the removal of two conditions attached to the current licence. He was therefore requesting an unlimited number of days on which a ceremony could be held (currently 42) with no restriction on the days of the week  (currently Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays).

(7)       The Marketing and Licensing Manager explained that the recommendation in the report had been made in the light of advice from Kent Highways.  This differed from advice previously given in that it stated that there were no grounds in terms of highway safety for refusing the relaxation of conditions.   Following advice received from the Director of Law and Governance, the recommendation was to agree to the relaxation of both the conditions sought by the applicant.

(8)       The Marketing and Licensing Manager said that further representations from Mr Chapman, Luddesdown PC and Mr and Mrs Mileson had been received and appended to the agenda papers after the report had been written and the recommendations made. In the light of this correspondence, he had sought advice from the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Environmental Health Officer. He had advised that in order to determine whether a noise constituted a “nuisance”, he had to take into account a number of factors such as regularity, volume and length of time in the context of whether it interfered in some way.  An example  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.