For those meetings that are being broadcast (as agreed by Council in July 2022) there will be a link to view the live broadcast under the ‘Media’ heading below. Guidance on how to watch live broadcasts of meetings.
The link to view a recording of a meeting that was broadcast can be found on the Council’s YouTube channel (@doverdc)
Venue: Remote Meeting - Teams Live Event. View directions
Contact: Jemma Duffield Democratic Services Officer
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
There were no apologies for absence.
Appointment of Substitute Members
To note appointment of Substitute Members.
There were no substitute Members appointed.
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.
There were no declarations of interest made by Members.
Licensing Act 2003 - Application for the Grant of a Premises Licence in respect of 119 High Street, Deal
The Sub-Committee is requested to determine the application.
Applicant: Susan Kirkwood and Andrew Kirkwood
The following papers are attached.
(i) Licensing Teams Leader’s report.
(ii) Appendix A – Application and plan.
(iii) Appendix B – Map of the area.
(iv) Appendix C – Copies of representations.
(v) Appendix D – Letters in support of the application.
The procedure to be followed by the Sub-Committee is attached to this agenda.
The sub-committee considered an application from Mr A and Mrs S Kirkwood in respect of 119 High Street, Deal. The application was for the grant of a premises licence as follows
Supply of Alcohol (for consumption ON and OFF the premises)
On the basis of the representations of the applicants and other persons, the sub-committee found the following facts to be established:
(i) The application was for a ground floor retail shop with high street frontage retail space, rear seating area and garden seating, trading as a deli/bistro with on and off sales of alcohol. The produce would be of high-quality, with the intention to offer food and drink tasting evenings with guest chefs. There will be on average twelve covers at any one time with a maximum of twenty if hosting a wine tasting event. The applicants stressed this was not to be primarily a drinking establishment.
(ii) The applicants were experienced retailers and premises licence holders and had traded in Deal since 2008. They were the owners and co-founders of the Dining Club in 2008 and Victuals & Co from 2013 to 2018. Both premises were situated in a mixed residential/commercial area with no reported complaints made to the authority in relation to the licensing objectives and these premises.
(iii) Three representations were received objecting to the application. Mr Baines and Mr & Mrs Cullingworth were present at the Hearing. The sub-committee had considered the representation submitted by Mr R Donnell who was not present at the Hearing. There were no representations made by any of the Responsible Authorities, including the police.
(iv) The licensing objectives cited to be undermined by the objectors were Prevention of Public Nuisance and Prevention of Crime and Disorder. The objectors were concerned that an additional licensed premises on the High Street, which already had a high concentration of licensed premises, would increase anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance for residents.
(v) There were concerns that there was no provision for smokers, and this would cause a public nuisance for the neighbouring residents. The applicants advised there would be no smoking at the premises which included the garden and that they would ask guests and patrons to use suitable bins on the High Street. They advised this approach had been successful with customers at their other premises and that they were willing to comply with their request.
(vi) Mr Baines and Mr & Mrs Cullingworth were direct neighbours either side of the premises. Mr Baines submitted photos to show the proximity of the garden, kitchen and outside toilet to his property. They raised issues concerning the use of the garden under previous proprietors and stated a planning condition had been breached. The planning consent required a barrier to be in situ in the garden to protect the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. It was suggested by the Other Parties that this barrier should be reinstated if permission be granted to prevent overuse. The applicants advised they would only ... view the full minutes text for item 4.