Resolved: That Cllr Esler be appointed Chairman of the meeting.

(Councillor Esler in the Chair)

There were none.

(Eynsford)

Before the meeting a Supplementary Agenda (3) had been circulated.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Legal Advisor addressed the hearing and drew the meeting’s attention to the legal requirement that a premises licence application be advertised by the display of notices around the premises for a period of no less than 28 days. There had been several concerns raised with the Council about whether this requirement had been met, and the Legal Advisor suggested that the panel first consider a preliminary issue of whether they considered that the application was valid for them then to determine.

The Chairman agreed to examine the validity of the application and invited the objectors and applicants to consider if the correct advertisement requirements had been met for the licence. It was also acknowledged that some parties to the hearing had questioned the position of the Legal Advisor in the application however; it was advised that the Advisor had been in correspondence with those for and against the application and the primary correspondence had been disclosed within the supplementary agenda.

The resident objectors to the application informed the panel that they had intended to have legal representation at the hearing; however due to uncertainty relating to the validity of the application and status of the hearing, they had been unable to find someone at short notice. The objectors voiced their concerns relating to the notices for the application, which they said had been put up on the 17 April 2019 and had been placed at ground level outside Lullingstone House and at the entrance to the A225. Images detailing the siting of these notices and their erection dates taken by the resident objectors and taken from social media had been provided as supporting evidence in the Supplementary Agenda 2. The objectors present at the hearing felt the placement and late installation of the notices had affected the interested parties’ abilities to provide comments.

The applicant said that signs had been displayed for 21 days. The applicant expressed the opinion that the festival organisers had been in communication with local residents ahead of the event and had been working to accommodate their requests.

The objectors raised concerns that the application had been advertised in the Friday Ad and questioned whether this met the requirements of a newspaper under the legislation. They noted it was not in a public Notice section. The Applicants informed the hearing that they had been advised by the Licensing Officer that an advertisement in the Friday Ad did meet the advertisement requirements.

An objector wanted the panel to note his opinion that the hearing was prejudiced due to it taking place the day before the event was scheduled and the late display of the notices. The Chairman advised that the local elections in May had prevented the scheduling of an earlier hearing. The Chairman reminded those in attendance that the license was for the selling of alcohol and the performance of live music, not to determine whether the festival  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.