Folkestone
Express 26-1-1935
Editorial
The Folkestone Council are making material progress
with the schme for the clearance of the slums in Radnor Street, and this will
undoubtedly be pleasing to the majority of Folkestone people. Practically all
opposition to the scheme in the Council Chamber has vanished, and it is clear
that the members are determined that without any delay now the operations will
be pushed forward to a successful conclusion. Yesterday the General Purposes
Committee considered the Health Committee minutes in connection with the
further development of the scheme, and the members were almost unanimous
concerning the Committee`s decisions. These were mainly concerned with the
licensed houses in teh area. These might have provided a very knotty problem,
for they were left out of the proposed scheme by the Health Minister`s order.
Unless something had been done in this direction three of the houses would have
remained as they were, and would have undoubtedly proved an eyesore set amidst
a modern and what will be a model housing estate. The Town Clerk (Mr. C.F.
Nicholson) was instructed to negotiate with the owners of the Jubilee Inn, the
Oddfellows Arms and the Ship Inn, and he is certainly to be complimented upon
the able manner in which he carried out those negotiations, and which will
certainly contribute towards the ultimate success of the scheme. The present
three houses will, if the proposals go through as it is hoped, be demolished
and will be re-built within the layout of the whole scheme. This will
necessitate an exchange of land, and the owners will receive an added piece of
land. Another licensed house in the area will disappear, but that will be a
matter of purchase. The re-erection of modern licensed houses will certainly
add to the effectiveness of the clearance of the whole of the area. The
purchase of three houses in Radnor Street not included in the order will also
give added scope for dealing with the whole of the area in a manner which will
resound to the credit of Folkestone. In order that the re-housing of people
from the area and other areas can be efficaciously carried out, the Committee
yesterday also agreed to the erection of 32 additional houses on the Hill Road
Housing Estate. Everyone who has consideration for those people who have had to
live in houses not worthy of being called houses will assuredly agree with this
extension of the Corporation estate. It looks like being full steam ahead now
with regard to the Radnor Street slum clearance, and those who have regard for
the fair name of Folkestone will be exceedingly pleased.
Council Meeting Extract
Yesterday (Thursday) the General Purposes Committee of
the Folkestone Town Council had before them the recommendations of the Health Committee
regarding the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, and by their approval
considerable progress will be made in the proposals for the demolition of the
property. The recommendations include the demolition of three of the licensed
houses on the sit and their removal on to different sites, and the removal of
one house altogether.
The Health Committee`s recommendations were as
follows:- Radnor Street Area: (a) Licensed Houses: The Town Clerk reported
that, as instructed by the Committee, he had been in negotiation with the
owners of the licensed houses excluded from the provisions of the Folkestone
(Radnor Street No. 1) Housing
Confirmation Order, 1934. The result of the negotiations is as follows: Jubilee
Inn: The owners of this house are prepared to erect a new house on the site
provisionally allocated for this purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the
Council, subject to the cleared site being conveyed to them in exchange for the
site of the existing Jubilee Inn. Oddfellows Arms: The owners of this house are
also prepared to erect a new house on the site provisionally allocated for this
purpose in the lay-out plan approved by the Council. This proposal will also
involve an exchange of lands, and is subject to the Corporation agreeing to
compensate the tenant for his trade fixtures and fittings, such compensation to
be fixed by a valuer to be agreed upon. Ship Inn: No definite decision has yet
been received from the owners of this house, but it is likely that they will
also agree to demolish and re-build this house on a site in the vicinity of the
present house. The arrangement will also involve an exchange of lands. The
whole of the above mentioned arrangements are, of course, subject to the
approval of the Licensing Justices.
Resolved that the committee approve in principle of the
above mentioned arrangements.
Councillor Lillie said that meeting was brought forward
a week in order that the negotiations which the Town clerk had had in
connection with the licensed houses could be considered. If the licence holders
had to transfer their licence from the present house to the house it was
proposed to build no time should be lost in considering the recommendations in
order that the owners could be informed so that they could appear before the
Justices at the Brewster Sessions and make application for their transfer. He
would like the Committee to express their approval of those negotiations, and
also to make any remarks they wished in regard to any items on those
proceedings. He moved that the minutes be approved. Alderman Mrs. Gore
seconded.
Councillor Barfoot: Do you not think as the public
houses are to be pulled down an attempt should be made to reduce the number
there? There certainly does not appear to be any need for three in teh area.
Cannot an application be made to the licensing authorities to have the number
reduced?
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: How many houses have to be
sacrificed if the Ship Inn is to be given a plot?
The Town Clerk: If it remains as it is it will take the
site of two houses.
Councillor Hart asked the Town Clerk whether the
Ministry of Health did not state that the licensed houses should not be
reduced.
The Town Clerk: They did not say that. The Ministry
excluded the licensed houses under the Compulsory Purchase Order, which prevented
you from acquiring the properties. The point raised by Councillor Barfoot is
quite a different matter. I understand representations were made comparatively
recently to have one removed.
Alderman Stainer: That was about a year ago.
The Town Clerk: And the licensing Justices decided not
to refuse the licence.
Councillor Barfoot: The circumstances have altered.
The Mayor: In what respect?
The Town clerk: There is one house going. We are
acquiring one of the four there at present.
Councillor Johnson: Have we any information about trade
done by these houses – the barrelage?
Councillor Gadd: On a point of order. Is this not a
question of slum clearance and not redundancy of licence? Have we any authority
for dealing with redundancy this morning?
The Mayor: We have not. It will have to be brought up
by an outside authority. At the present time it is not before us.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said they offered doubling
the plot of land for the re-building of the public houses. Land constituted
wealth, so they were offering something in the shape of wealth to the owners of
the licensed houses. They were having to buy those new houses, and they had a
number of deficiencies which were caused through having to give up that land.
The Town Clerk: It is not so.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said when they were in
Committee the Town clerk asked the Borough Engineer why he could not squash the
houses up a little more, and the Borough Engineer said it was impossible. It
was then discussed that they should buy the three additional houses.
The Mayor: That was more from the point of view of
giving a better approach to the houses.
Councillor Thiselton: I deny that.
The Town Clerk said he wished to explain that the
Minister merely said that they were not to spend £20,000 to buy public houses.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said it was no use discussing
that; the public houses were there. She was referring to the first meeting
after the Ministry`s decision was published.
The Town Clerk said the Minister`s order excluded the
public houses in order that the expense of acquiring them might be avoided. As,
at any rate, two of them interfered with the lay-out it became incumbent upon
them to arrange for their removal on some terms. The owners had agreed to
remove them all to other sites on the terms of exchanging land. They,
therefore, got the houses removed from their present sites as they desired, at
no cost other than that the sites on which they were going were slightly larger
than the sites on which the present houses stood. “I have”, he said “seen the
Ministry of Health of those proposals. They think the proposals before you are
extremely satisfactory”. They had got the removal of the three licensed places
from their present lay-out at a very small cost indeed.
Councillor Davis said in four or five years` time the
question of redundancy might come up again. Would it not then cost more than it
would today to reduce the number? That was what he thought Councillor Barfoot
was driving at.
The Town clerk: Why should it be suggested in five
years that you would want to buy a new house?
Councillor Davis: It would not cost so much now.
The Town Clerk said the question of redundancy had
nothing to do with the Council. If there was a wish to reduce them in five or
six years` time there was the question of redundancy to consider, and that
would have to be decided by the Compensation Authority.
The Mayor: This question does not come within the scope
of this Council.
Councillor Barfoot: Was it not understood that on the
site of Nos. 5, 7, and 9 a public house would be built on that corner?
Several members: No.
Councillor Kent said if that scheme was carried out
they would have three modern public houses with adequate accommodation, which
they did not possess now. The arrangements were, he considered, splendid.
The Mayor said he was present at the meeting of the
Health Committee, and he thought they were all indebted to the Town Clerk for
the very able manner in which he had carried out very delicate negotiations. He
thought the Council had done exceedingly well, and he considered the best thing
they could do was to agree to those recommendations unanimously.
The resolution approving the minutes was carried, only
Mrs. Thiselton voting against it.
Folkestone
Express 9-2-1935
Editorial
The Town Council are to purchase the Packet Boat Inn in
connection with the Radnor Street scheme, and therefore the Corporation will
become the possessors of a licence. How they are to dispose of that licence
will prove a very knotty problem for them to solve. A discussion on the
question at Wednesday`s Council meeting clearly indicated that there was a good
deal of feeling over the matter, and when it comes before the General Purposes
Committee on Tuesday it is not improbable that there will be a lively debate on
the subject. Mr. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, certainly did not deserve the
rebuke concerning the action he had taken in the matter so far by one prominent
member of the Council, and it is hoped that no heat will be evinced by any of
the members when they meet on Tuesday to decide what looks like being a very
difficult matter. It is hardly possible to imagine that the East Cliff Pavilion
will be suitable for a fully licensed establishment, and it mus be borne in
mind that the Licensing Justices would only grant a restricted licence to the
Leas Cliff Hall.
Council Meeting Extract
The monthly meeting of the Town Council was held on
Wednesday.
The Radnor Street Scheme
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said she would like to know
if Nos. 5, 7, and 9, Radnor Street had been offered for the re-building of the
Ship Inn.
Councillor Lillie said Councillor Mrs. Thiselton had
learned there was a wish by the owners of one of the licensed houses in the
area to build a new public house on the site of the three houses. The offer was
still open and they could negotiate with the Council. He thought he could hold
out no hope that they were likely to do so.
East Cliff Pavilion; Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The
Town Clerk read an extract from the proceedings of the Catering Sub-Committee
of the 21st January, 1935, recommending the removal of the
intoxicating liquor licence from the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the
East Cliff Pavilion.
Resolved that the recommendation of the Catering
Sub-Committee be not approved.
Land at The Stade; Catering: (a) Proceedings of
Sub-Committee; Read the following provisions of the Catering Sub-Committee:
East Cliff Pavilion Intoxicating Liquor Licence: The Town clerk reported for
the information of the Sub-Committee that the licensed house known as the Packet
Boat Inn, 59, Radnor Street, is included in the Folkestone (Radnor Street No.
1) Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. The Corporation will acquire this licensed
house, including the intoxicating liquor licence. The Sub-Committee considered
the question of the removal of such licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.
Resolved that this Sub-Committee recommend that at the
appropriate time the necessary application should be made for the removal of
the licence from the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion.
Alderman Hollands said he wished to move that the
Committee`s recommendation with regard to the purchase of the Packet Boat Inn
be not approved, but that it be referred to the General Purposes Committee for
further consideration. There was no doubt that it would be a contentious
matter. Councillor Bridgland seconded.
Councillor Saunders: This is a question of the transfer
of a licence which the Corporation would purchase through its slum clearance
scheme and would become the property of the Corporation. The suggestion was
that it should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion. The Town Clerk
introduced this matter to the Parks Committee. It was part of the Town Clerk`s
duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the licence. I want to say
right away now that I oppose the transfer of the licence to our pavilion, and I
want to stop it. The matter was brought before the Parks Committee. The
Sub-Committee voted in favour of it, and when it came before the Committee it
was defeated by a majority. I suggest there is no public demand for a full
seven days` licence, and I suggest there is no necessity for it. It would be
detrimental to the neighbourhood. It could not be said that it is in the
interests of the golf course, because it is a success. Some of my golf friends
will not agree with me. I suggest that the pavilion is better off without a
licence, and I hope the Council will give a decisive vote this morning. The
licence was put into the Leas Cliff Hall purely for the use of the patrons of
that hall. It was safeguarded by the Licensing Justices putting a condition in
the licence. I do not think it is any business of the Corporation to enter into
the business of a licensed victualler on the East Cliff. I think the trade is
able to supply all the public needs in that vicinity. We have to use our
discretion in this matter. I deplore the action of the Town Clerk in bringing
this to the Parks Committee at all.
The Mayor: I object to that statement.
Councillor Saunders: I have a right to say what I
think. I think it was his duty to enter into negotiations for the purchase of
the licensed premises, but it is no part of the own Clerk`s duty to initiate
any process. (Several members: He has not done that.) As far as I am concerned,
though I am the Chairman of the Committee who hold a licence for the
Corporation, I am distinctly against any furtherance of the activities of the
Corporation in that manner. I was against the Leas Cliff Hall licence. The
Council will do a grave wrong if they do not support the majority of the
Committee.
Councillor Kent: In a case like this where we have to
pay a large sum of money for a licence, and then have to surrender the licence,
surely it is the duty of the Town Clerk to bring it before the appropriate
Committee to see whether it was the wish of the Council to retain that licence
by taking it to a building erected by the Council. The Town Clerk has acted
properly in the minds of many of the members.
The Mayor: He would have been neglecting his duty if he
had not done so. It was his bounden duty to bring that matter forward, and he
has done so.
Councillor Saunders: I respectfully suggest it is a
matter of opinion. I have a right to put my opinion to the public.
The Town clerk: I should have had no authority to go
and surrender that asset of yours without consulting you, and asking what you
should have done with it, either using it or surrendering it in the hope that
you may get compensation. You are not bound to get compensation for it. There
is an asset, and it is not for an official to say what should be done about it
without consulting the authority.
Alderman Stainer: Has the Council ever approved of the
East Cliff Pavilion being used for the sale of intoxicating drink? (Cries of
“Yes”.)
Alderman Franks said he was going to support Alderman
Hollands` amendment. He did so because when a local authority was going to
discuss the question of a licence, did they not think the more light they had
on the question the more information the public got so that they could frame up
for and against? Let them have the full limelight on it. He did not see why an
opportunity should be turned down without the public knowing anything about the
chance or whether a licence should be granted or not.
Councillor Hart said he was supporting Alderman Hollands`
amendment. When they arrived at the decision in regard to Radnor Street the
Town Clerk very rightly told them there was one house to go, and it remained
for the Council whether they wanted the licence moved to another place or not.
How did Councillor Saunders know the need did not exist? He (the speaker) was
in favour of that, and he would be affected by it if there was a licence, for
he had customers within a stone`s throw of the East Cliff Pavilion. He could
assure Councillor Saunders that people did want that place. He saw that some
multiple firm had engaged the Pavilion for a staff gathering, and a licence
would be used on that occasion under the management of Councillor Saunders.
Councillor Saunders: I object to that.
Councillor Hart: Who has applied for the licence?
Councillor Saunders: I wish to make a personal
explanation, for a reflection has been made upon me by Councillor Hart. I am
the Chairman of the Entertainments Committee, not the holder of the licence.
The Parks Superintendent rang me up one day last week and said they had an
application for an occasional licence for the Pavilion, and would the
Entertainments Manager apply for it? I said “Yes”, but I considered it, and
afterwards I rang him up, and said that I considered he should get that
occasional licence. The Parks Superintendent said “Very well”, and rang up the
Chairman of the Committee, who did not agree with that point of view. I rang up
Councillor Kent, whose point of view was that the licence was the property of
the Corporation, and that it was the duty of the Entertainments Manager,
rightly or wrongly, to apply for it. I took the view that it was usually the
duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for licences, and that probably it
might be part of his job.
The Mayor: There is no personal reflection upon you.
Councillor Kent said he had no objection to the
amendment. He felt the licence was too valuable to surrender. He quite agreed
something must be done quickly, because the application would have to be made
to move the licence from one building to another at the annual licensing
sessions or the adjourned licensing sessions. The General Purposes Committee
would have to be called together quickly.
The amendment was carried by 26 votes to five.
Folkestone
Herald 9-2-1935
Editorial
A proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor
Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion was considered by the Folkestone Town
Council at its meeting last Wednesday, and it was then decided to call a
special meeting of the General Purposes Committee (which consists of the whole
of the Council) to consider the matter. We hope that there will be a unanimous
decision at this meeting of the General Purposes Committee not to allow a
licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The Packet Boat Inn is included in the
clearance area of the Radnor Street scheme, and the Corporation, in accordance
with the terms of the scheme, will acquire
this licence. An intoxicating liquor licence today is a very valuable thing,
and the Town Clerk would have been remiss in his duties had he not called
attention to the fact that this licence would become the property of the
Corporation. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff
Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable. The East Cliff Pavilion is
primarily a place at which refreshments, including teas, can be obtained. It was built for the convenience of residents and visitors
in the East Cliff area, and we nave little doubt that the majority of members
who voted in favour of the construction of this Pavilion never intended that
it should be licensed. In our opinion it is entirely unnecessary for a licence
to be obtained for this building. The area in which it is situated is largely
residential, and during at least nine months of the year the number of visitors
in that district is very small indeed. The provision of a licence could not
therefore be said to meet the requirements of
visitors during these winter months. In the summer months large numbers of
visitors of course visit the East Cliff, but surely it is not suggested that
they would become so thirsty that the convenience of a licence at this Pavilion
would be necessary. After all, visitors do not necessarily come to the town to
drink intoxicating liquor, and we believe that the provision of a licensed bar
at this Pavilion would defeat the whole object of providing refreshments of a
light nature for those who desire them. The plain question which arises is
whether, in the event of the Packet Boat licence not having become the property
of the Corporation, an application would have been made to the Licensing Magistrates for a
new licence for the East Cliff Pavilion, and if so was there a likelihood of
such application being successful? The accident of the purchase of the licence
of the Packet Boat Inn does not in our opinion justify the Council in licensing
the East Cliff Pavilion, even if the Licensing Magistrates were prepared to
accede to such an application. We suggest that no hardship of any kind will be
suffered either by the residents or visitors if the East Cliff Pavilion remains
as it is at present, providing light refreshments, teas and such like for
those who desire them.
Folkestone
Express 16-2-1935
Annual Licensing Sessions
The annual Licensing Sessions was held on Wednesday at
the Folkestone Town Hall, when the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) reported
that there had only been 15 convictions for drunkenness, the number being the
same as the previous year. One licence, that of the Mechanics Arms, was
referred to the adjourned licensing sessions, all the others being renewed. The
licensing hours were extended for the whole of the summer time period by half
an hour, from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.
Mr. R.G. Wood presided, and a number of Magistrates
were on the Bench.
Radnor Street Licensed Houses
Several of the clergy and ministers and representatives
of various religions and temperance bodies were present in Court, evidently
with a view to watching the proceedings concerning the licensed houses in the
Radnor Street area. Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, was also present.
The Chairman asked the Town Clerk if he had anything to
say.
Mr. Nicholson said he really did not quite understand
the position with regard to the licences in the Radnor Street area. Did they
want him to explain what the Corporation`s proposals would be?
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): These licences will be
renewed today?
Mr. Nicholson: Certainly.
The Clerk: Nothing comes in force until next year?
Mr. Nicholson: The Corporation do not own any of the
licences for the moment. I did not anticipate I should have to explain anything
today.
The Chairman: We are asked to renew four licences in
the area. We have no official information. It is a question whether they should
be renewed or referred to the adjourned sessions. We know something by
newspapers. We can defer the renewal and in the meantime think over what action
we shall take.
Mr. Nicholson: The owners of these houses are not
represented this morning. Is it proper for me to say anything about it?
The Chairman: Why are you here?
Mr. Nicholson: I did not ask to be here.
The Rev. Dr. Carlile: Is this an application now being
made for the renewal of the four licences? If so, have the applications been
made in order?
The Clerk, to Mr. Nicholson: Is there anything you have
to officially mention? In the ordinary course there is an application for the
renewal of all the licences, which does not affect what you are doing in the
Radnor Street area.
Mr. Nicholson: I am not making any application this
morning.
The Chairman: We would like to have some information of
what is likely to happen.
Mr. Nicholson said as they were probably aware the
Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a compulsory purchase
order. There were four licensed houses in the area. The Ministry declined to
allow the Corporation to purchase three of the houses and they were struck out
of the order. The remaining house, the Packet Boat, would be acquired by the
Corporation as a going concern. It so happened that the Jubilee, the Ship, and
the Oddfellows Arms, where they now stood, interfered with the proposed lay-out
of the new houses, and on instructions he entered into negotiations with the
owners. Two of them, the Jubilee and the Oddfellows Arms, agreed to re-erect, subject
to the approval of the Magistrates, on alternative sites that would enable the
Corporation`s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with. With regard to the Ship Inn,
he had not yet received the decision of the owners as to whether they were
prepared to pull down and re-erect a new house. The terms of the arrangements
with the Jubilee and the Oddfellows were subject to applications which would be
made to them in due course. There was to be an exchange of land in connection
with them. There was to be no cost to the Corporation other than paying the
tenant for the trade fixtures. With regard to the Ship Inn, he had not obtained
information whether they were prepared to pull down. That house did not
interfere with the scheme so much as the other two. It would be much better for
the scheme if that house was pulled down and re-erected, but the Corporation
could not insist upon it. The other owners had done all they could to assist in
their scheme. The Packet Boat would be definitely acquired. Notice to treat had
been served and a claim had been sent in. The Ministry confirmed the order
which included that house.
Mr. E.H. Philcox, who stated he represented a number of
residents in that area, said he would like to raise a question on the renewal
of the houses.
The Clerk: I cannot see you have any locus standi.
Mr. Philcox asked if the matter for the removals would
come up at the adjourned sessions. If so, he would be there to object. It
seemed to him they would be able that day to only provisionally renew the
licences for the time being, or mention that they would be referred on the
ground of redundancy.
Dr. Carlile said a very considerable number of
residents were interested in those four licences. If there was any
consideration of the question of the renewal of the licences they definitely
asked that their views might be considered in reference to redundancy.
The Chairman enquired what the police view was.
The Chief Constable said at the Magistrates` primary
meeting he received instructions to go into the question of redundancy and
ascertain whether it would be possible to differentiate between the houses. He
did so and he found some considerable difficulty in saying because it was an
established fact that there were not too many licensed houses for the summer trade
in the area. All the houses did extremely well. Whether they were structurally
adapted or not was open to enquiry. The houses less structurally fitted were
doing a better trade. More customers were in those pokey houses than in the
better houses. There was, he supposed, a psychological reason for it. He had
had a system of paying monthly visits and it gave him a line on the trade. He
had selected a certain number of houses and they had put them into three
groups.
The Chief Constable then described the groups and gave
details of the numbers of customers in them at certain times. The first group
consisted of the Mechanics Arms, the Honest Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. The
second group included the Harbour Hotel, the True Briton, the London and Paris
Hotel, and the Princess Royal. The third group were the Alexandra Hotel, Royal
George, South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the Chequers, the
Wellington, the Royal Oak, and the Lifeboat.
The Magistrates retired to consider the matter and on
their return the Chairman said they had decided to renew all the licences with
the exception of the Mechanics Arms, which they renewed until the adjourned
licensing sessions when it would be considered with regard to redundancy.
Dr. Carlile: Then no objection can be taken here and
now, or in any other place, to the four licences involved in the scheme?
The Clerk: There will be applications for removals
later and anyone can be heard at the time those applications are made. That is
the position.
The Chairman: It will be better for the objections to
be raised when the transfer comes along.
Dr. Carlile: It puts us at a very serious disadvantage.
There will only be a question of renewal then.
The Chairman: It is a question of renewing them for one
year now.
Dr. Carlile: It will be a question of the removal of
licences that have already been granted.
The Chairman: That is the position.
Licences Transferred
The following licences were transferred: London and
Paris Hotel, from Mrs. Venner to Mr. C. Garland; Mechanics Arms to Mr. Moxon.
Editorial
The members of the Town Council on Tuesday had a big
debate on the question of the proposal to transfer the licence of the Packet
Boat Inn, which is to be purchased under the Compulsory Purchase Order in
connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance area, to the East Cliff
Pavilion. The discussion was conducted in a particularly calm and well-reasoned
manner, and one feature of it was the manner in which the proceedings were
handled by Alderman Franks, who was voted to the chair in the regretted absence
of the Mayor through illness, and the Deputy Mayor. Alderman Franks certainly
showed his great capability to occupy the position, and his able conduct of the
business undoubtedly convinced every member present that he should in the near
future undertake the highest honours which a town can bestow on one of its
citizens. The Committee decided that the Council should be recommended to make
application for the transference of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion, and
so paved the way for what will be unquestionably a stern fight over the matter
before it is ultimately decided. It was made quite clear by those who supported
the proposal that there is no thought of turning the Pavilion into what is
regarded generally as a public house, and this fact should allay the qualms of
quite a number of people concerning the matter. It was stated by one of the
chief supporters of the proposal that he would endeavour to see that there should
be a condition imposed that no drinks should be served for consumption off the
premises, and other speakers hinted that there would be no bars in the usual
acceptation of the term. One of the objects of the erection of the Pavilion was
to supply refreshments to meet the needs of the many thousands of people who
flock to what is becoming one of Folkestone`s principal attractive spots, and
if the licence is to be mainly for the purpose of supplying alcoholic drink to
people using the building for obtaining refreshments, then doubtless some of
the opposition, which would have been launched against what is regarded as a
public house licence only, will evaporate. One argument used was that if the
licence was not transferred to the Pavilion it might not be long before another
application is made for a real public house to be built in the district by a
brewer`s firm offering to transfer a licence from another portion of the town
to that area. This has been done frequently up and down the country. Some of
those who objected to the proposal did so on the ground that a municipal
authority should not become licence holders, but Folkestone would not be the
first local authority to become possessed of such a licence. Some seaside
resorts which are often quoted as examples for Folkestone to follow in some
directions hold licences in similar circumstances as proposed by the
Committee`s resolution. I suppose there will be petitions and
counter-petitions, and whoever has the ultimate task of deciding the question
will have a difficult task placed on their shoulders. It will be remembered
that when the Leas Cliff Hall obtained the licence the decision was not upon
the local Magistrates, but Justices from the Elham Division sat at Folkestone
Court, and agreed to the transfer of the Rose Hotel licence to Folkestone`s
attractive hall. I suppose a similar procedure would have to be adopted in this
instance if the resolution passed on Tuesday meets with the approval of the
Council, as it seems likely, provided there is not a swing of the pendulum so
far as the opinion of the members is concerned.
Council Meeting
The General Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town
Council on Tuesday discussed the question of whether application should be made
for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which is to be
purchased under the Radnor Street slum clearance area scheme, to the East Cliff
Pavilion. The Sub-Committee of the Parks Committee recommended that that course
should be adopted, but the Parks Committee recommended that the Council should
not approve of the application being made. At the Council meeting last week it
was decided that the matter should be referred to the General Purposes
Committee for consideration.
The Mayor was unable to be present owing to illness on
Tuesday when the General Purposes Committee met, and the Deputy Mayor was also
absent. Alderman T.S. Franks was elected to the chair in the absence of the
Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
The Chairman said the Town Clerk informed him that he
had received several letters addressed to him on the subject, and the Committee
would probably like the letters read before discussing the matter.
The Town Clerk then read the letters, the first being
from Dr. H. Dodgson, Sea View, Dover Street. It stated “I notice by the
Folkestone Herald that a special meeting of the General Purposes Committee of
the Town Council is to be held on February 12th for the express
purpose of discussing the question of transferring the licence from the Packet
Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion. I wish to register my
emphatic protest against any such action being taken. My reasons for doing so
are: (1) In my opinion it is absolutely unnecessary. (2) I am very much afraid
it will lead to all kinds of immorality, as the excessive use of alcohol almost
invariably does. (3) The neighbourhood of the East Cliff has in recent years
developed considerably, and is now a credit to the Borough. I consider it
should be the desire of the Council to keep it free from any influence that
could possibly injure our young people. (4) A licence at the East Cliff
Pavilion would deteriorate the value of all property in the vicinity. (5) As a
ratepayer, I strongly object to virtually becoming a shareholder in the liquor
traffic activities of the Borough Council. I shall be obliged to you if you
will bring this letter to the notice of your Committee tomorrow”.
The Folkestone Branch of the National British Women`s
Total Abstinence League wrote “The members of the above-mentioned Union
understand that the General purposes Committee are meeting tomorrow to consider
specially the question of granting a licence for the sale of intoxicating
liquors at the East Cliff Pavilion. In view of the fact that the Pavilion is
one of the places in the town where our young men and women will congregate in
large numbers, we deplore the possibility that such a licence may be granted,
and in their interests urge upon the Committee the undesirability of such a
course”.
A letter on behalf of the Folkestone Girl Crusaders,
the Boys` Brigade, and the Gordon Club was as follows “Will you kindly place
this letter before the General Purposes Committee at their meeting tomorrow
(Tuesday) to discuss the granting of a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.
Being deeply interested in the moral welfare of young men and women, we
strongly desire the authorities to consider carefully the temptations with
which our young people will be faced if a licence is granted to the East Cliff
Pavilion. These temptations, almost invariably present wherever intoxicating
drinks are sold, will be made still more difficult in view of the situation of
the hall rendering it difficult for efficient supervision, and also owing to
its being on the borders of the Warren; lonely, unprotected country. We wish to
register our protest against the granting of this licence as it may easily make
this part of the town undesirable, if not dangerous, to the moral welfare of
our young people. As our work brings us into contact with many young people, we
do know in the majority of cases that drink has been the first step towards
moral ruin”.
Miss A. Wilson, of Lennard Lodge, Lennard Road, wrote
“May I voice a protest against the proposal to allow intoxicating drinks to be
sold at the East Cliff Pavilion to the deterioration of the property owners and
the usual discomfort of residents – which generally does take place when
closing time comes along – disturbing the rest of so many invalids and visitors
who live in what should be a rapidly rising residential area. Also it will
encourage the most noisy type of trippers to spoil the East Leas, which during
the summer months is so appreciated by an ever increasing number of people.
Truly hoping it will never come to pass”.
Dr. T.W. Crawford sent the following letter from
Lennard Lodge. “As a ratepayer living near the East Cliff, I beg to protest
against the proposal of transferring a licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. I
venture to assert that the great majority of citizens living over here would,
if consulted, not consider it advisable to have licensed premises in this
residential area. We do not consider it advisable to have intoxicants sold near
to our sports ground and golf course, which is frequented by so many of our
young people. We consider that our town has enough licensed premises already,
and strongly protest against any more being established in residential
districts of our town”.
A letter from the Gordon Club was as follows “As
representatives of this club whose aim is to help the unprivileged youth of
this town to attain the highest development of manhood in body, mind and
spirit, we are greatly concerned at the proposal to transfer a licence to the
new pavilion on East Cliff. We feel that facilities to obtain intoxicating
liquor there cannot but be detrimental to the young people of both sexes who
use the East Cliff golf course and the municipal tennis courts, and others who
congregate in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the position of the building, in a
public park on the outskirts of town, renders proper police supervision
difficult, thus it will not be easy to check any tendency to misconduct of any
sort which may arise. We earnestly hope that the Council will register a
decision more in accord with the aims of this and similar bodies who are
striving for the moral uplift of the town”.
Mr. Arthur T. Cook, of Carshalton, Surrey, wrote “I see
by your local paper that the question of a licence for the new pavilion on the
East Cliff has arisen, and as an old and very frequent visitor to your
health-giving resort I trust you will not take exception to my writing to you
on the subject, as in my own humble opinion the east end of the town is
becoming the most popular owing to the fact that you now have a very nice
stretch of sand and safe and delightful bathing, but I must admit that there is
not a licensed house in the vicinity of the East Cliff (with the exception of
the Royal Pavilion Hotel) where one feels disposed to take a lady, and I
consider that a licence at the new pavilion is the very thing that is needed.
If I may be so bold, might I also suggest that another boon for the East Enders
would be a band performance on the East Cliff, say two or three evenings a
week? I think you will agree with me that the popular taste has to be catered
for, and as proof of this assertion, might I point to the great success of your
Popular Wednesday evenings at the Leas Cliff Hall, and on my next visit I hope
to see similar gatherings in the new Pavilion. I trust you will not consider
these suggestions out of place from one who is not a ratepayer, but only as
from one who wishes to see your town cater for the public and so bring more
prosperity. Might I sign myself as a well-wisher?”
A letter from the Folkestone Equitable Golf Club was as
follows: “I would be pleased if you would kindly cause the following to be
placed before the General Purposes Committee at their next meeting, which, I
understand, is being held on Tuesday, the 12th inst. At a meeting of
the above club I was instructed to communicate with the appropriate Committee
regarding the proposed transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the
East Cliff Pavilion. The following is not purely the opinion of our members as
a Golf Club, but as ratepayers, of whom our members are about 90 percent. It is
felt that having regard to: (a) The tens of thousands of people visiting during
the year; (b) the residential growth of the East Cliff; (c) the fact of the
Town Council sinking some thousands of pounds in the erection of the East Cliff
Pavilion; (d) that the East Cliff definitely warrants this licence. The Town
Council having acquired this licence, which, we assume, has cost the town no
small amount, have now an opportunity of opening up, without any cost, another
source of revenue by transferring this licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It
would appear to be deplorable to throw away such a valuable asset, and we are
of the opinion that there will be, and is, a public demand for this licence,
and having regard to the revenue point of view a real necessity for it. We do
not think that the granting of this licence will be in any way detrimental to
the neighbourhood, for many of our residents are members of this particular
part of the town, and their opinion is at least worth some consideration. It is
therefore hoped that the General Purposes Committee, when discussing the
question of this licence, will have due regard to the opinion of a few
ratepayers who would not relish the knowledge that such an asset and source of
income had been cast aside. Yours faithfully, W. Smith, Hon. Secretary”.
Mr. J. Tucker, of Purley, wrote “I have read with
interest in the Folkestone Express and Hythe Advertiser the debate which took
place in Council regarding the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. May I, as
a frequent visitor over a number of years, and an ardent admirer of Folkestone,
be permitted to express the hope that the licence will be applied to the East
Cliff Pavilion, which is unquestionably a very fine hall. I think it is only a
matter of time before it is found that the attractions of Folkestone have moved
eastwards on account of the bathing facilities at that end, and in view of the
structural alterations about to take place. This being so, it should, in
fairness to visitors staying at that end, be possible for them to attend
dances, etc., in the Pavilion without being “forced” to the Leas Cliff Hall.
Furthermore, I know of no suitable place where one can take a lady for some
mid-day refreshment after a round on the golf course. May I be pardoned for
taking what, as a non-ratepayer, may be considered a libert in writing to you”.
Mr. R.R. Tatt, East Cliff, Folkestone, wrote: “With
reference to the purchase of a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. I have read
that the residents in the East Cliff district say this licence is not required.
As the proprietor of a large of a large boarding house I would like to say that
it was a general remark among visitors who saw the Pavilion being built and
afterwards saw it opened, that it was a great improvement, and when a band –
(we understand a bandstand has been suggested) - and a licence were provided,
it would fill a long-felt want on the Cliff and help considerably to popularise
this end of town. From a visitor`s point of view, more particularly a day
visitor, picnicking with his family on the Cliff, is it not very desirable that
all members of the party should be able to obtain refreshments of any
description from the same refreshment house, and at the same time a profitable
business worked up by the Council? Is this not desirable? Why is it that those
who complain most about losses on Corporation entertainments, etc., are the
first to say “We don`t want the place for the profit”? What are we ratepayers
to understand? The pavilion is far enough away from any licensed premises to
cause no loss to anyone else, and it would give a great amount of satisfaction
to visitors who already know our beautiful cliff, and at the same time
popularise the golf and tennis court and East Cliff sands. The Corporation has
an opportunity to make money by drawing to the places where chairs, etc., are
all Corporation owned. Can you tell me why there is any opposition?”
The Town Clerk, after reading the letters, said: I am
pleased to say that is all. (Laughter)
The Chairman said he wished to make a personal
explanation. During the discussion in the previous week he stated that he
remembered that provision had been made in that building by the Parks
Committee, of which he was Chairman at the time, for the facilities for selling
intoxicating drink. He wanted to make it plain that there was never any
question of there being a public house licence there. Some years ago, when they
started golf on the East Cliff, they had an application from the different
clubs to erect a hut in order that members might have facilities for a club
licence if they thought fit. The Council wanted to retain entire control of the
golf course, and they did not want to have the place disfigured by a variety of
huts. He then said when the time arrived the Committee would probably put
forward proposals for erecting a utility building in keeping with the
neighbourhood. He never heard, nor did he understand, that he conveyed that the
facilities would be for a public house licence. The Committee wanted to make
the Pavilion a complete building, and so prevent alterations afterwards,
therefore provision was made for certain facilities.
Alderman Hollands said he would like to move a
resolution on the lines that the Council take the necessary steps when the time
arose to transfer the licence from the Packet Boat to the East Cliff Pavilion.
He did so as one of the oldest representatives of the East Ward. He appreciated
the fact that they were there to do the best for those whom they represented.
In his opinion they would be doing the right thing in getting a licence. There
was an advantage placed at their disposal to obtain a licence. They had to
purchase the Packet Boat Inn, and therefore the licence was at their disposal.
They could, if they thought fit, surrender the licence, but he was afraid they
would not get very much for it. There was no decent public house within half a
mile of that Pavilion. There was no more desirable building for such a licence.
They would be providing lunches at the Pavilion in the summer, and people would
be requiring drink with their lunches, and they could not send round the corner
for it. Was it not high time we woke up to the fact that British people were a
responsible, clean-minded set of people? He had had no-one approach him against
the licence, but he had had letters from many people pushing him to secure that
licence for the East Cliff Pavilion. They need not keep the Pavilion open all
the year. They might open it in the winter in the daytime, but it could be
closed in the winter. He thought in the summer months the licence would be a
great benefit, and not a detriment. The Hotel Metropole was only open for about
three months of the year. The liquor trade was tied up with all sorts of
restrictions. He lived in that district, and he did not think the value of
property would go down if the licence was obtained; in fact, he thought it
would help to make the property more valuable. There were people who were
definite Prohibitionists and who wished to prevent anyone from drinking. They
had an illustration of that in America, where there was more cursedness and
wickedness going on when they found substitutes. They had better have moderate
drinking as they had in that country, and trusting people, instead of something
like the conditions they had in America. He hoped the Council would be
broad-minded and act in the interests of the town by agreeing to that transfer
of the licence.
Alderman King-Turner said he rose to second the
resolution. He had been fighting for 24 years against conditions to the
detriment of people in the ward, and had given the best part of his life for
the uplifting of that portion of the town. He did not think they could take the
letters seriously. It seemed to him that some people thought they would be
committing a crime if they permitted a licence there. He had been appealed to
get a licence many times for that building. The licence was necessary for that
part of the town, and they should give people the advantages they desired. He
was not going to take it that it was a crime to have a licence there. He wanted
to give facilities for the people up there to help themselves. He was
broad-minded, and asked the members to support the resolution. The licence
would be one of the most perfect things to provide on the East Cliff.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said apparently the only
attractions for Folkestone in the future would be the facilities visitors could
get for drink. Their children, it had been stated, were not allowed in a public
house, so did that mean that children would not be able to go into the
Pavilion? That Pavilion was the resort of young people and a place where
entertainment and refreshments could be obtained. That question was
inadvertently mentioned at one of the Health Committee meetings several weeks
ago, and the Town Clerk immediately stifled the discussion in that Committee. She
did not think he could deny that. She could not see why that matter should be
rushed and for that Committee to meet before the Brewster Sessions. There was,
therefore, no time to do anything after the decision of this Committee was
known. “It is extraordinary”, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton said, “that Alderman
Hollands should take that action, for he has a son employed by the Parks
Committee. Mr. Kent is, or was, a licensed victualler, and Mr. Bridgland is, I
believe, related to the family who has been interested in the catering
previously”.
The Chairman: I hope you will not enter into
personalities, Councillor Mrs. Thiselton. One is not a keeper of their
relations. I suggest you keep within bounds. I ought to mention this matter is
not rushed. The Brewster Sessions has nothing to do with this licence.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: It must be settled today.
The Chairman: I ask you to be more careful in your
statements.
Councillor Mrs. Thiselton: Last year we started with
the advertising of whisk distillers on the East Cliff. For the sake of the
youth of Folkestone I appeal to the Council to reject the recommendations
before us. I do not think anyone in this Council has had longer experience than
I have had of work amongst young people, starting when I was 18. I have worked
and lived in the East End of London and in the provinces. I have worked in
France and other foreign countries, and it is ridiculous to compare our habits
with those of the French. Our whole outlook is different. I hope that those who
are responsible for deciding this matter will think twice before they support
this resolution.
The Town Clerk said if that resolution was carried it
was only a resolution of the Committee and had to be confirmed by the Council.
This will not come before the Brewster Sessions or the adjourned Sessions. If
it is decided that the application be made and it is approved by the Town
Council the application will not be made before the Brewster Sessions or the
adjourned Sessions.
Councillor Davis said he thought it would be helpful to
him if the Town Clerk would answer the question: “What happens to the licence
if the Council decide not to apply for its transfer to the East Cliff
Pavilion?” He would also like to know what would be the position if in the near
future it was thought that a licence was necessary in that district.
The Town clerk said they were purchasing a licensed
house in the Radnor Street area, known as the Packet Boat. The price they would
pay for that would be just the market value. As a matter of fact he had
received that morning a claim from the owners of the house in response to the
notice to treat, and the amount of the claim is £4,693.
Councillor Saunders: How much of that is for the
licence? Are you not including the value of the building as well?
The Town Clerk: That is for the whole of the building.
Councillor Saunders: The licence is only part of the
cost?
The Town clerk said looking at the provisions of the
Housing Act, 1930, there was a special clause which dealt with the provisions
of licensed houses purchased by the local authority. There were several methods
in which they might deal with it. Councillor Davis asked what would happen to
that licence in the event of it not being transferred to the East Cliff
Pavilion. According to sub-section 2 of section 14, if they purchased or
contracted to purchase the premises, the Authority intimated to the Licensing
Justices that they were willing to surrender the licence, the Justices might
refer that matter to the Compensation Authority, and that Authority, on being
satisfied that the licence, if not surrendered, might properly have been dealt
with as a redundant licence, should contribute out of the compensation fund to
the local authority the sum not exceeding the compensation which would have
been payable under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, on the refusal of the
renewal of the licence. They would, therefore, be at liberty to go to the
Licensing Justices, and if they agreed that the licence is not surrendered
might properly be dealt with as a redundant licence they might award their
compensation for its surrender. The compensation for surrender was the
difference between the value of the premises as licensed and the value of the
premises without a licence. The amount of the valuation is that specified by
the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. That was one method. Another method of
dealing with it was, of course, that which they were considering. There was
still another method, and that was to endeavour to dispose of the licence by
finding someone to purchase it.
Councillor Davis: What would be the position if the
Council did not have the licence and later found they wanted a licence?
The Town Clerk said if that licence was not transferred
to the Pavilion and either surrendered or sold, and at some future time they
found they wanted a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion, they would have to
apply for a new licence, which, he thought would be admitted by everyone, would
be difficult to obtain. They would have to pay a monopoly value on the granting
of a new licence, which would add to the cost. The monopoly value was the
difference between the value of the premises as licensed and unlicensed, so it
might be a very considerable sum.
Councillor Younghusband: Approximately what would be
the actual cost of the licence?
The Town Clerk: The licence duty in respect of the
licence if transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion would be half the net annual
value of the premises.
Councillor Saunders: Can you tell us that now?
The Town Clerk said the Borough Treasurer stated it
would be in the region of about £200.
Councillor Saunders: It would be about half that?
The Town Clerk said as the premises were not rated the
figure would have to be agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Councillor Hart asked if the Town Clerk would make it
clear that under certain circumstances they would be entitled to get a
reduction from the Excise Commissioners.
The Town clerk: The net annual value will be agreed
with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
Councillor Fletcher asked if the Council were bound to
purchase.
The Town Clerk: You have given notice that it is to be
bought under the compulsory purchase order. The Licensing Justices decide what
houses are redundant. It is not for the local authority to say what houses are
redundant. You have to buy the Packet Boat Inn, and you have to pay the market
value for it.
Councillor Saunders said it was utterly obvious that
some alterations were necessary in that building to adapt it for the use of a
full public house licence, which is entirely different to a club-house licence
they had in mind first.
Councillor Kent: I think the Borough Surveyor can give
the approximate cost.
The Borough Surveyor said details had been got out, and
they provided for the alteration of cloak room. Including everything the figure
was £160.
The Chairman: Do I understand that the Parks Committee
have thought fit to decide as to the alterations?
Councillor Kent: A meeting of the Catering
Sub-Committee was held, and the Surveyor was asked to prepare a figure.
Councillor Saunders said Alderman Hollands had
suggested that no attention should be paid to the people engaged in looking
after the young life of the town. His position was a peculiar one, because, he
said unhesitatingly, he had seen some of the effects of a licence under
municipal control on the young life of the town. The Corporation, in holding a
licence and being the local authority, put the police force in an extremely
delicate position. That building was in a public park, and the Home Office did
not pay their quota for controlling public parks. They would not only have to
pay for the cost of the licence, but for patrolling the area.
The Chairman: The building is on a police beat.
Councillor Saunders said it was a question of principle
with him. Was it advisable for a local authority to enter into a trade the
difficulties of which it had been admitted of the danger it carried. He
suggested they wanted to look at that matter from the broader aspects. They
wanted to get away from the point of view of the cost, and to consider whether
they were doing their duty, particularly to the young people of Folkestone, in
putting licensed premises in that particular neighbourhood or in any building
owned by the Corporation. He was going to say that they would get better
control, better everything, if they got a really good licensee than they would
under Corporation management. He thought that was the point of view of
everyone. Personally he deplored the fact that the Council were seriously
considering that, for it was a business they should keep out of. They had a
licence at the Leas Cliff Hall, but they had got it under safeguards,
fortunately. He was never in favour of it when it was installed. There they
were going to set up an ordinary public house in the ordinary accepted term.
The Corporation were going to enter into the business, if they agreed with that
resolution, of a licensed victualler, with all its ramifications and with all
its potential dangers to the people. He was convinced it was not going to be an
asset. The proper thing was to treat the licence as part of the clearance
scheme. That was a business best left to private enterprise. They would be
entering into serious competition with other people. Referring to the cost,
looking at it from all points of view, he did not believe their profit was
going to be anything much, and not enough for the Council to worry about. If
they talked of it as an amenity, it was an amenity the Council should leave
alone. Anything that would increase the attractions of Folkestone he was
prepared to vote for, but for anything that was prejudicial to the best
interests of the people it was not part of the Corporation`s business to assist
in facilitating something which every decent man and woman knew was not either
physically or intellectually going to do any good. To his mind that was a
perfectly true statement, and he was not speaking as a teetotaller. All he
could say was that if they passed that resolution they must realise they were
doing something which might have a detrimental effect on the young people.
Councillor Hart said Councillor Saunders had stated
that he had been a holder of a licence. He wanted to ask him whether he had
ever held an on-licence.
Councillor Saunders: I have made a statement that I
have held a licence. That is perfectly true.
Councillor Hollands: He will not answer the question.
Councillor Chittenden said he agreed with all that
Councillor Saunders had said. He was one of the Committee who got the Pavilion
through the Council. He thought they were all proud of the fact that they had
got it, but his enthusiasm would have been considerably less if he had thought
that the Corporation would run it as a public house. If a man wanted a pint of
beer it was up to him to decide for himself, but the Corporation should not be
the one to tempt him to do so. He should oppose the transfer of the licence to
the Pavilion.
Councillor Hughes said he was delighted with the way in
which Councillor Hollands had brought that resolution, for they wanted to
approach that question not in the personal spirit. They had to look at that
matter from the point of view of Folkestone and the neighbourhood. He was
convinced it would be a very grave step on the part of the Corporation if they
decided to transfer that licence, and he thought eventually time would prove
that to be true. He believed it would lower considerably the tone of the whole
neighbourhood in which the Pavilion was placed if the licence was transferred
there. He thought it would put the brake on and considerably retard the
building of the sort of residences they desired, they needed, and wished to
develop. They had got Dr. Barnardo`s Home and St. Andrew`s Home near, and
licensed premises would not be pleasant for the inmates of those homes. He did
not believe it was in the interests of any town that the municipality should
run licensed premises, and he definitely disagreed with them doing so. He had
had a considerable number of letters on the subject, and all those who had
approached him were definitely against the suggestion. He thought the consensus
of opinion was very much against than for the proposal. He felt that the
Corporation had no mandate or any right to put temptation in the way of the
young people in that neighbourhood, nor did he think it would be in the best
interests to make it a rendezvous for the young fellows on the Camp. He had had
35 years in temperance work, and he wanted to appeal to those who had no strong
feeling on the matter, and who had children of their own, to ask them whether
they would like their own boy or girl frequenting that place at eleven o`clock
at night when the lights were low. The Corporation should not put temptation
into the lives of young people.
Councillor Bridgland, reading from a document regarding
the letting of the Pavilion, said it stated that in the event of an application
being made for the sale of intoxicating liquor the licence should be obtained
by the Entertainments Manager. He would like to ask the Chairman of the Parks
Committee if Councillor Saunders was not present when that was passed at the
Parks Committee meeting, and if he was not present at the Council when it went through and he did not oppose it
in any shape or form.
Councillor Saunders: That is a personal reflection on
me.
The Chairman: Councillor Bridgland has asked a
question, and that question has not been answered.
Councillor Saunders said he claimed the Committee`s
indulgence. He had a copy of that form before him, but it was the first time he
had seen the form. He thought if they would look at the minutes of the meeting
there was no question of any detailed statement as to what should be on the
form.
The Town Clerk said if he remembered rightly it was
that the own Clerk submitted draft conditions for the letting of the East Cliff
Pavilion.
Councillor Saunders said he had no knowledge that it
was part of the duty of the Entertainments Manager to apply for a licence until
his attention was drawn to the fact by Mr. Roden.
Councillor Bridgland said Councillor Saunders was at
the meetings, and he had the opportunity to oppose it. Councillor Hughes had
talked about the young people, and if he went to the Leas Cliff Hall he would
see the young people there when it was nearly dark. Dancing went on when beer
was being drunk there, and that was the first time Councillor Hughes had
protested against it. He (the speaker) was strongly in favour of transferring
the licence, so that any man with his wife could go into the Pavilion and have
the refreshment they desired. They would be able to have that, not in a
four-ale bar, but in congenial surroundings. They wanted to be consistent over
that. People who were opposing that transfer would go to a dinner and order
their bottle of wine, therefore showing they wished to say “I can have my bottle
of wine, but you shall not have your glass of beer”.
Councillor Gadd said when he saw the minutes of the
Parks Committee on that matter he rather automatically decided that he should
turn the proposal down. Within an hour he was in conversation with a very close
friend, and to his surprise he knew more about the matter than he. They
discussed it, and he told him in all probability he should support the Parks
Committee, but he was in a bit of doubt about it because he did feel he might
not be doing what was right. He thought about it considerably afterwards, and
he had to face up to the facts. That was what they had to do that morning.
After he had faced up to the facts he came to the conclusion that given the
opportunity he would have to support the Catering Sub-Committee. He realised
what had made him unhappy about it. He had looked at the matter in this way.
The question of the sale of alcoholic liquors was not for their decision. That
was already decided by the powers who had it in their hands. The question of
granting the transfer was not before them that morning. The whole question they
had to decide was whether in view of the duty which they undertook to perform
when they became members of that Council was they would without fear or favour
consider all matters that came before them. They had built a Pavilion and the
cost of any loss would have to be met from the General Rate fund. The sale of
alcoholic liquors was only required for refreshment purposes.. They had not to
look upon that from any biased point of view. Could they say they were dealing
with all sections of the community if they called upon a section to pay for the
cost or any possible loss when they denied a section of the refreshments to
which they were entitled? If they decided against making the application, the
effect of that was that they would say to a certain section of the community
that they were people who were dissolute and not reliable – (Cries of “No”) –
and not to be trusted to conduct themselves as a citizen should do inside the law.
(Hear, hear) He could not get away from that fact. They had to deal impartially
with all classes. The question was whether there should be a licence in that
building or not was, he contended, a matter they had to leave to the Licensing
Justices. He knew what he had said might cost a friendship of some years he
valued very greatly, but as a representative of the public he had to support
the making of the application.
Councillor Johnson said he had come to the conclusion
that the licence was not necessary for the whole of the year. With their
catering since September they had lost £45. The licence was to cost another
£100 a year, and administration would cost them another £160. The licence might
be necessary for four or six months, but it was not necessary in the winter
months. He believed if they approached the golf players there would be not more
than 40 percent in favour of the licence. If the residents in that
neighbourhood were asked, two thirds would be against that licence, and the
other third would not care whether they had it or not.
Councillor Kent said the Sub-Committee knew they were
committed to buy the licence. In view of that it was their bounden duty to make
the best use of it. It had been stated that morning that in all probability at
some time they would have to apply for a new licence for that building, and
that would be a very difficult thing to get. The Pavilion was a general utility
building to supply all kinds of refreshments. He submitted intoxicating drinks
in moderation was a reasonable kind of refreshment. Much had been said about
the abuse of licences. Licences were not abused. Evidence from all over the
country showed that the percentage of drunkenness throughout the whole of the
country was brought down to the lowest possible degree. The reason for that was
that the licences were not abused. Probably 20 years ago he would have been
opposed to that licence, although he had been in the licensed trade for a
number of years. The cost of intoxicating liquor was one reason why it was not
abused. The other reason was that intoxicating liquor was of very much reduced
strength to what it was 20 years ago. Brewers today were brewing light beers
and very light beers (laughter) which were reasonable and quite good
refreshment. Education had certainly played a wonderful part and the hours of
opening had been reduced considerably. Cinemas had also taken people away from
the public houses. To say that licences were abused was absolutely wrong. As
Councillor Gadd had already said, it was a direct insult to the community at
large to say they could not be trusted with a licence. They were not creating a
new licence, but they were taking away a licence in a redundant neighbourhood
and placing it where it would provide facilities for the public. He was not
going to say they were going to make a huge profit, but it was really only for
accommodation. No less than 150,000 games of golf had been played up to last
summer on East Cliff, and that was evidence that a very large section of the
public used that particular part of the cliffs, and they were entitled to
refreshments of that description if they so desired it. The Pavilion was on a
police beat, and no extra cost would be entailed in policing it. There was no
reason why the Pavilion should not be properly controlled. It was understood
that they would have one nice bar and proper service in the main building, the
restaurant, so that it could be conducted on first class lines. If the Council
refused to make that application they were not doing their duty to the
community.
Alderman Stainer said it was only on Friday in the
previous week, when an application was made to the Magistrates for an
occasional licence, that he realised there was any suggestion on the part of
anyone in the Corporation that the Pavilion should become a licensed house. He
was so astonished when the Entertainments Manager appeared before the
Magistrates and asked for a licence that he went off to the Town Clerk to
enquire whether the Council had ever authorised the use of the East Cliff
Pavilion as a licensed house. In doing so the Corporation minutes came into his
hands, and he found what had been taking place in the Parks Committee. He saw
the Committee turned down the resolution passed by the Sub-Committee. He was
very sorry to find that in October last that thing was authorised by the
Corporation. He maintained that that authority was obtained without the members
of the Corporation realising what was involved. He looked up the minutes, and
on October 3rd he found the only reference that was put before the
Corporation was as follows: “Conditions of letting. The Town Clerk submitted
draft conditions of letting of the East Cliff Pavilion. Resolved that the same
be approved”. He might be told there was his opportunity of finding out the conditions,
but he maintained it was done in such a quiet and unobtrusive way that it got
through the Corporation without the matter being given due consideration. He
deplored the action. The licence of the Leas Cliff Hall was obtained in a
similar manner. His opinion was that it was better for everyone to abstain from
taking any drink at all. Other members did not agree with him. He was very
sorry indeed to think that that matter, all in the space of a week, had been
brought to the public; it had hardly yet got to the public. He thought if the
Committee was wise, it would not take the step of passing the resolution.
Councillor Pope said he was going to support the
resolution because they were going to transfer the licence to another place,
where they were not going to create drunkenness.
The Chairman said with regard to the restrictions on
the Leas Cliff Hall, he would like to say it was a full public hotel licence
which belonged to the Rose Hotel. The Corporation desired a stipulation put
upon that by the Magistrates. He did not suggest the two buildings were not
comparable.
Councillor Hart said a great many things had been said
for and against the resolution. A great many arguments had been used and facts
given, which were not true, against the trade in which he was engaged. Had the
Council considered the vested interests that were likely to come forward?
No-one had said anything about that. If a brewer`s firm, as had happened in a
town in close proximity, liked they could get a full licence in that neighbourhood
by the removal of a full licence from an obscure neighbourhood. They might say
it could not happen on the East Cliff. Well, there was nothing to prevent it.
Licensing Justices encouraged the improvement of premises. “I am only an off
licence holder”, he added, “but if you hear some of the remarks made to me when
people on East Cliff come in and ask for a drink, you would be surprised. I
will tell some of them if you like. (Cries of “Don`t”) Well they complain most
bitterly.
The Town Clerk, asked for the resolution, said it was
to the effect that when the Packet Boat Inn had been purchased by the
Corporation they should take the necessary steps to apply to the Licensing
Justices for the transfer of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.
Councillor Saunders: A full public house licence?
Councillor Hart: Yes, unless you put some restrictions
on it.
Alderman Hollands said he would suggest, and hoped,
that there would be a proviso preventing drink being served for consumption off
the premises.
The resolution was then put, and the voting was as
follows: For, 17; Against, 10.
The Chairman said the resolution was carried.
Folkestone
Herald 16-2-1935
Annual Licensing Sessions
Another year of sobriety was reported by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S.
Beesley) to the Licensing Magistrates at the annual Licensing Sessions for the
Borough, which were held at the Town Hall on Wednesday. All the licenses were renewed with the
exception of that of the Mechanics’ Arms, which was referred to the adjourned
annual Sessions with a view to the question of redundancy being considered. During the Sessions reference was made
to the four licensed houses in the Radnor Street area, a statement being made
by the Town Clerk.
The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Mr. A.E.
Pepper, Mr. J.H. Blarney, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Alderman
Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Seager, Alderman W. Hollands and Alderman J.W. Stainer.
The Town Clerk (Mr. C. F. Nicholson) was
present and it was suggested he should address the Magistrates. He said that he
did not quite understand what they wanted him to tell them.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What is the
position of the licensed houses in the Radnor Street area?
The
Town Clerk: You want me to explain what the effect of the Corporation’s proposals in regard to the
Radnor Street area will be?
The Clerk: These licences won’t be renewed, will they?
The Town Clerk: Certainly. The Corporation don’t own any of the
licences at the moment.
The Clerk: They may.
The Town Clerk: Only one. If the Bench want me
to explain what the position is likely to be I shall be pleased to do so.
The
Chairman said they were asked to renew four licences in the area. They had no official information as to what
would happen to them. The question arose whether they should be renewed that
morning or put over to the adjourned Sessions.
The Town Clerk pointed out that the owners of the houses were not represented
that morning. Was it proper for him to say anything about it in their absence?
The Chairman: Why are you here?
The Town Clerk explained that he was asked to come.
The Clerk said he thought the Magistrates might like some information.
Dr. J.C. Carlile, who was present with other clergy and ministers, then
asked if an application was now being made for the renewal of these licences in
the Radnor Street area.
The Clerk (to the Town Clerk): Is there anything you have to mention
this morning why the licences should not be renewed in the ordinary way?
The Town Clerk said it would not affect what the Corporation were doing
in the Radnor Street area if the licences were renewed. He pointed out that he
was making no application to the Magistrates that morning. As they were probably aware the
Corporation had submitted to the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order
for the acquisition of most of the properties in the Radnor Street area.
Included in the order were four licensed houses, the Jubilee Inn, the
Oddfellows’ Inn, the Ship Inn and the Packet Boat Inn. When the Minister came
to consider the order he declined to allow the Corporation to purchase three
of those houses, the Jubilee, the Oddfellows’ and the Ship. They were struck
out of the order on the ground of the expense which would be involved if the
Corporation had to acquire them. The remaining house, the Packet Boat Inn,
would be acquired by the Corporation. It so happened that the position of the Jubilee Inn and the Oddfellows’
Inn as they stood at the present time interfered with the proposed lay-out of
the new houses. On the instructions of the Corporation he had entered into
negotiations with the owners of the houses concerned and two of them, namely
the Jubilee and the Oddfellows, had agreed, subject to the approval of the
Magistrates, to pull down and build new houses on alternative sites. That
would enable the Corporation’s lay-out scheme to be proceeded with, but with
regard to the other house, the Ship Inn, he had not yet received the decision
of the owners of that house as to whether they were prepared to pull down and
erect a new house on a new site. These terms of the arrangements with the
owners of the Jubilee and Oddfellows’ were subject to an application which
would be made to the Magistrates in due course. The owners of the houses were
conveying to the Corporation the sites of their existing houses in exchange
for sites on which they would build new houses. There was to be no cost to the
Corporation other than certain compensation to the tenant. In spite of the fact
that the houses were struck out of the order, the way in which the owners had
met the Corporation would enable the lay-out scheme to be proceeded with as
they desired.
The Chairman: That’s for two of the houses?
The Town Clerk replied that that was so. With regard to the Ship Inn, as
he had stated, he had not yet obtained the decision of the owners of the house.
If they decided to stay where they were, their house would not interfere with
the scheme so much as the other two had done. It would mean that their house
would abut in front of a line of cottages which were going to be built there.
The Chairman: It won’t seriously interfere with you?
The Town Clerk: No, but it would be much better if they would. We cannot
insist on them doing so. The other owners have done all they can to meet the
wishes of the Corporation. Continuing, the Town Clerk said
the fourth house was the Packet Boat Inn which was to be acquired by the
Corporation.
Dr. Carlile: Is it?
The Clerk: Don’t interrupt, please.
Continuing, the Town Clerk said notice to treat had been served and a
claim had been sent in. That house was being acquired because the site was
definitely required in connection with the lay-out scheme, and the Ministry had
confirmed an order which included that house but excluded the other three.
Mr. E.H. Philcox, a solicitor, then rose and asked permission to speak.
He stated that he represented a number of residents in the area: He wanted to address the Bench on the question of
the renewal of these licences.
The Clerk said he could not see any locus standi.
Mr. Philcox said when the matter did come before them again in
connection with the removals of these houses he would be there to object on
behalf of a number of residents. It did seem to him, however, that it would be
more satisfactory if they only provisionally renewed those licences that day. Amongst the
points he would make would be one on the grounds of redundancy.
Dr. Carlile said if the Magistrates were going to discuss this matter he
wished to point out that a considerable number of residents were interested in
these four houses and if there was any consideration of the question of the
renewal of these licences then they asked that their views might be considered
in reference to the question of redundancy. If the Magistrates were going to
refer them back no further word need be said now on the subject.
The Chief Constable said he received the Magistrates’ instructions at
their preliminary meeting in regard to the question of redundancy. He had found
some considerable difficulty in deciding. It was an established fact that there
were not too many licences in the borough for the summer trade, for all houses
did extremely well during the period, whether structurally adapted for the
purpose or not. One found that houses the least structurally fitted were doing
a better trade. They found more customers in these pokey houses. He supposed
there was a psychological reason for it. He had had a system since he had been
there of monthly visits and those visits gave him a line on what trade the
houses were doing. He had selected a number of houses and grouped them into
three groups.
The first group included the Mechanics Arms, the Honest
Lawyer, and the Harvey Hotel. He had taken comparative figures for the
year and these figures showed that the Honest Lawyer had an average of 19 customers
on every occasion they were visited; the Harvey Hotel 16, and the Mechanics
Arms six. They made a special series of visits
between January 17th and February 3rd and they found that
the Mechanics Arms had an average of five; the Harvey 10; and the Honest Lawyer
17. They would see from those figures that the figures were pretty well the
same for the whole year. It would appear superficially that of these three the
Mechanics Arms was the one to go.
He had another group made. It consisted of the Harbour Hotel, the True
Briton, the London and Paris and the Princess Royal. The figures for the year
showed an average of 28.5 for the Harbour Hotel; 17.5 for the True Briton; 46.5
for the London and Paris; and 7 for the Princess Royal. The licensee of the Princess Royal had
been there for 25 years and in spite of the figure he had mentioned they seemed
to be making a living somehow or other.
The Chief Constable mentioned a third group which included the Alexandra,
the Royal George' the South Foreland, the Wonder, the Pavilion Shades, the
Chequers, the Wellington, the Royal Oak and the Lifeboat. The two which were
doing the least trade, judged by' his figures, were the' Wonder with an average
of 12 and the Lifeboat with an average of 14. The others were not doing very
much better. It. was difficult to differentiate in that group. He was prepared to take directions from the Magistrates, but he was not
prepared to give any.
The Magistrates then retired.
The Chairman stated on their return that with reference to Dr. Carlile’s
question, the Bench had decided that later on he (the Chairman) should renew
all the licences with the exception of the Mechanics Arms, the licence of which
the Magistrates had decided not to renew that morning but refer to the
adjourned Sessions to have evidence of redundancy or otherwise.
Dr. Carlile: That means ho objection can be taken here and now or at any
other place to the four licences involved in the Radnor Street scheme?
The Chairman: I think now is the time for you to raise any objection.
The Clerk pointed out that there would be applications for the removals of
these licences later on and then anyone could be heard.
The Chairman: That will be the better time, then.
Dr. Carlile said it put them at a very serious disadvantage because the
licences would be granted again and there would only be the question of
removal. It meant that when it came to the question of removal of the licences,
it would be the removal of a licence which was already in being.
The Chairman: I am afraid that that is the position.
The Chairman then announced the renewal of all licences with the exception
of the Mechanics Arms, which he stated would be deferred until the adjourned
sessions.
Editorial
Few questions of public policy in recent years
have caused such keen divergence of opinion amongst the whole of the
townspeople as has the proposal of the Folkestone Town Council to apply to the
Licensing Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to
the East Cliff Pavilion. The Packet Boat Inn is within the Radnor Street
Clearance Area, and the Council will acquire the licence of this house. The
licence, of course, is a very valuable thing m these days, and the Town Clerk
quite rightly reported the fact that this licence would eventually become the
property of the Corporation.
The proposal to transfer the licence to the
Cast Cliff Pavilion was approved by 17 votes to 10 at a meeting of the General
Purposes Committee of the Town Council on Tuesday. Their opinion will certainly
not meet with the approval of a large
number of ratepayers, but on the other hand there are a considerable number of
people living in the vicinity of the East Cliff who regard the licence as a
necessity, particularly during the summer
months. With the object of obtaining the views of our readers upon the matter,
there appears on page 20 of this issue a form which readers are asked to fill
up. The reply is asked to two simple questions, as follows: "I am in
favour of the Corporation applying for the transfer of the licence”, and “I am
not in favour of the Corporation applying for the transfer of the licence”.
It is hoped that our readers will show their interest in this most
difficult problem by responding to our request for the forms to be forwarded to
us, at the latest, by February 27th. By this means we hope to give the members
of the Town Council, through our columns, some indication of the weight of
opinion for or against the proposal.
In view of this request to our readers, we do
not propose to make any further comment at present upon the proposed transfer
of the licence. We desire, if possible, that the opinions expressed by our
readers shall be unbiased, and we do not wish to be open to the charge that we
have in any way persuaded them in their decision. It should be borne in mind
that this matter not only affects the East Cliff, but it is a public question
in which the whole of the town is concerned, for the East Cliff Pavilion does
not belong only to the residents in that area. The question of the transfer of
the licence is a matter for the whole of the town, since the Pavilion was built
by money supplied by the whole of the ratepayers, and it is they who, in the
eventuality of a deficit occurring upon the running of this Pavilion, will foot
the bill. Once again, therefore, we appeal most earnestly to our readers to
take an interest in this matter, and especially to fill in the form which
appears at the top left-hand comer of page 20. The form has been placed in this
position so that its removal from the paper will cause the least inconvenience
to our readers.
Folkestone
Express 23-2-1935
Editorial
The recommendation of the members of the Town Council
to transfer the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which the Corporation has to
purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to the
East Cliff Pavilion, has been a topic of much discussion during the past week,
and a good deal of resentment has been aroused against the action of a
contemporary in trying to get people to vote “Yea” or “Nay” concerning the
matter. In announcing their suggestion, our contemporary stated last Saturday
“We desire, if possible, that the opinions expressed by our readers shall be
unbiased, and we do not wish to be open to the charge that we have in any way
persuaded them as to their decision”. Just see how our contemporary wishes that
its readers shall be unbiased. On February 9th, in writing on this
matter, the leader was headed “An Unnecessary Licence”. In the course of this,
apparently the same writer who wishes his readers shall be unbiased, wrote “We
hope that there will be a unanimous decision at this meeting of the General
Purposes Committee not to allow a licence at the East Cliff Pavilion. The
proposal, however, to transfer the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion is, in
our opinion, wholly unwarrantable. In our opinion it is entirely unnecessary
for a licence to be obtained for this building”. In view of such statements, of
which the majority of the members of the General Purposes Committee took but
little notice, can our contemporary say that it has not endeavoured in any way
to persuade people in making a decision on the matter? It has already shown
that it is biased on the matter, and it is endeavouring to bolster up the
opinions expressed in its columns by a method of voting which could and will
not, I venture to suggest, have the slightest weight with those in authority,
whether the figures be in favour of the transfer or not. No fair indication
could be obtained of the people`s opinions in such a manner. But there is a
touch of comedy in connection with this matter, for even with those who have
the controlling interests in our contemporary there seems to be a diversity of
opinion. A member of the firm, speaking at the annual dinner of the Master
Bakers` Association, in proposing the toast of the Association in the absence
of the Mayor, said “Deputising for the Mayor, it is only proper that I should
outline the policy I should adopt as Mayor. It would include the purchase of
the foreshore, licensed premises on the East Leas”. There is, I think, no need
to pursue the matter much further, except to say that our contemporary opposed
the building of the East Cliff Pavilion as it now stands, and had the Council
followed the advice it offered when the scheme was first submitted to the
Council, the building which now adorns the East Leas would not have been
erected. The members of the Council paid but little regard to the criticisms of
our contemporary on that occasion. They had what our contemporary then lacked,
a true vision of what was needed on the East Cliff.
Folkestone
Herald 23-2-1935
Editorial
The small fry of the
Folkestone Press are squealing their hardest and loudest over the action of the
“Folkestone Herald” in taking a vote of its readers upon the question of the
East Cliff Pavilion. The squeal, alas, is but a dismal wail for, of course, the
opinions of these smaller fry are almost negligible. They could be completely
ignored but for the fact that they contain some foolish statements. It is said
that there is some resentment in the town because the “Folkestone Herald” is
taking a vote of its readers upon the question of the East Cliff Pavilion
licence. We have not met it, and we think it exists only in the imaginations of
those who themselves resent a little enterprise of which they are not capable.
The “Folkestone Herald” has every possible right to take a vote from its
readers if it desires to do so, and the response which we have had to the
request for opinions of our readers upon the Corporation’s proposal to
transfer the licence of the “Packet Boat” Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion is sufficient
indication to us that far from there being any resentment, except perhaps on
the part of the interested parties, there is general approval of our action.
Very rarely do we make it a custom to refer to anything which these small fry
of the local Press see fit to state. We are far more concerned in making our
own business our own. We suggest that if some of those who spend their time in
endeavouring to criticise the “Folkestone Herald” gave more attention to
their own businesses, they would possibly be more successful than they are at
present. We do not regret for one moment any action we have taken upon the
question of the East Cliff Pavilion licence, and the last thing we should dream
of doing would oe to take more than passing notice of some of the
nonsense we have seen published this week. We stand entirely by our action, and
whatever may be the result of the vote we have taken, will be made public
property in a manner which we hope will meet with the approval of the whole of
the townspeople. Fortunately the “Folkestone Herald” has more than 12,000 readers
to which to appeal. We
venture to think that some of those who so freely criticise us would be glad to
be In a similar position. Maybe they
lack
that enterprise which alone will bring a newspaper to the forefront in any
town, and if their opinions do not receive the seriousness or the consideration
which they may deem they merit, it is possibly due to the fact that they are
over anxious about other papers and not perhaps sufficiently anxious about
their own.
Folkestone
Express 2-3-1935
Editorial
Last week we referred to the proposal of the General
Purposes Committee of the Folkestone Town Council to apply for the licence
associated with the Packet Boat Inn, which the town has to purchase in
connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme, to be transferred to
the East Cliff Pavilion. In doing so, we commented on the fact that our contemporary
was endeavouring to take a vote upon the subject in order to bolster up its
opposition, strongly expressed in its columns on February 9th, a
date previous to the meeting of the members of the Council. Our contemporary
stated “We hope that there will be a unanimous decision not to allow a licence
at the East Cliff Pavilion. The proposal, however, to transfer the licence to
the East Cliff Pavilion is, in our opinion, wholly unwarrantable”. The members
of the Council, however, decided to proceed with the proposal, therefore they
clearly indicated that they did not have any regard of our contemporary`s
opinion. Following our comments on Friday last week, our contemporary devotes a
leader to our attitude. This leader was headed “A Dismal Wail”, and surely
never did a heading more aptly describe what followed, for it was the dismal
wail of a writer who could not answer the plain statement of fact contained in
our note on the subject: In fact no effort was made to deal with the subject,
but it was a tirade against the Express, and showed that we had, to use a
vulgarism, completely rattled our contemporary. There is a saying in certain
legal quarters, not those associated with the highest traditions of the Bar –
that when counsel knows he has a poor case and is losing, then his only hope is
to abuse and try to sling mud at his opponent. Our contemporary, by its
article, shows that it is well versed in such tactics. We are classed as small
fry and it was suggested that we had no right to express an opinion on a
subject, which is quite an important one in municipal affairs. We do not want
advice, nor do we seek it, from our contemporary, but we would point out to it
that it is asking even the smallest ratepayer to vote, therefore it is hoping
to get support for its views from “small fry”. We do not doubt that they will
even accept votes from Boy Scouts and Girl Guides if they wish to record them,
but the voting will not have the slightest effect, we are sure, on the members
of the Council. Our contemporary tries to make a point that our opinions do not
receive consideration. We can quote many instances of where the opinions of our
contemporary were disregarded by those in authority, as was the case when the
matter of the licence came before the members of the Council. Two might be
mentioned. Our contemporary opposed the building of the Leas Cliff Hall, and
also the building of the present East Cliff Pavilion. The Express advocated
both buildings being erected. These two halls are now amongst the chief
amenities of Folkestone. Our contemporary described us as small fry, so we
might well suppose that it considers itself “the big fish”, and, in that event,
it`s last week`s leader should have been headed “A Dismal Whale”.
Folkestone
Herald 2-3-1935
Editorial
The result of the ballot
made by the “Folkestone Herald” on the proposal of the Corporation to transfer
the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, in the Radnor Street area, to the East
Cliff Pavilion, shows a majority of 48 against the Corporation’s proposed application.
A total of 408 papers were sent in, of which four were disqualified.
The voting was: For: 226 votes.
Against: 178 votes.
The response to the
invitation to vote would suggest that the majority of the townspeople have
little interest in the matter, but the reason for the small poll can probably
be attributed to large numbers of ratepayers not taking the trouble to cast a
vote one way or the other.
Amongst the “Noes” there
were three papers from Hythe, whilst Cheriton sent in 10 and Sandgate three.
Four clergymen were amongst the opponents. An analysis of the papers of
those against the proposal shows that at least 75 per cent were from parts of
the town other than the East and Harbour Wards. On the other hand quite a good number of those in
favour of a licence reside in the East Cliff district. One of the papers received in
favour of the licence came from a seaman serving on a British battleship at
Malta. Four papers were sent in signed but without the cross and they were disqualified.
Folkestone
Express 9-3-1935
Editorial
The Folkestone Town Council on Wednesday confirmed the
decision of the General Purposes Committee to make application to the Licensing
Justices for the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, when it is
taken over by the Corporation. Not only was the majority obtained in Committee
maintained, but it was more decisive than on the previous occasion. In the
discussion on the matter it was made quite clear by those in support of the
application for the transfer that it was not intended the Pavilion should have what
is generally known as a public house licence. A member of the deputation of the
clergy in his speech referred to cafes on the Continent, and it on that
principle that the Committee entrusted with the East Cliff Pavilion should
consider the matter. No-one in Folkestone wants to turn the Pavilion into a
public house, and there would be considerable opposition to that being done,
and the Committee should be as strong as anyone on that point. There is very
little doubt that they will ask for restrictions to be imposed, and the
Folkestone Corporation should be able to show that they can manage licensed
premises equally as well as other Corporations who have similar places under
their charge.
Council Meeting
On Wednesday the Folkestone Town Council confirmed the
resolution passed by the General Purposes Committee two weeks ago that they
should make application that the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, which they
have to purchase in connection with the Radnor Street slum clearance scheme,
should be transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion, by a great majority than in
the Committee, 22 members voting for it, against 11.
A deputation of clergy and ministers placed their views
before the Council, the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, the Rev. J.A. Middleton, and
the Rev. C.H. Scott being the speakers.
Councillor Saunders asked for permission to introduce
the deputation and to present a memorial in connection with the matter.
Alderman Gurr moved, and Councillor Bridgland seconded,
that such permission should be granted, and the resolution was carried
unanimously.
Councillor Saunders, in introducing the deputation,
read the memorial which they had come to support, and which was as follows:-
“Memorial presented to the Town Council of Folkestone by representatives of the
Christian Churches in Folkestone with reference to the proposal to transfer the
licence of the Packet Boat Inn to the East Cliff Pavilion. 1: The deputation,
which the Council are asked to receive represents practically the whole of the
Christian Churches in Folkestone. We respectfully urge you, before you come to
any final decision, to bear in mind that the question of a licence for the East
Cliff Pavilion has not been submitted to the ratepayers, and the Council has no
authority from the ratepayers to apply for the transfer of a licence for the
East Cliff Pavilion. 2: The Corporation golf course, tea house, etc., is a
distinct attraction to the neighbourhood. We are convinced, however, that the
sale of liquors is not likely to be a desirable attraction. 3: We are convinced
that the business of a licensed victualler is one that the Corporation, with
all its many activities, can well leave to the responsibility of the
individual. 4: We suggest that the Corporation should surrender the licence on
the ground of redundancy in the Radnor Street area – as in the rebuilt area the
resident population will have seriously decreased through curtailment of
housing accommodation. In the area there are still three public houses, so it
cannot be argued that this one is necessary”.
The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden said he first wished to
expressed his thanks to the Mayor and the members of the Council for their
willingness to receive that deputation. They were all pleased to see the Mayor
in the chair and glad to know he was restored to health and fully recovered
from his illness. The deputation represented a large section of the community
of Folkestone. They did not consider themselves as being the only religious
denominations, but they represented many denominations – he thought all the
denominations, he hoped. First of all, he wished to say they objected to the
transference of a licence to a place where it was not really required or
desired by the neighbourhood. He had some justification for saying that. He
knew there had been a canvass, as far as he could gather, of the immediate
neighbourhood of the Pavilion, but he thought that the people would not be in
favour of having a licensed house there as they would consider it somewhat
detrimental to the neighbourhood. Secondly, there weighed with them that it was
proposed to transfer a licence to a place which might lose very much of its
attractiveness if it was done. The Pavilion was an extraordinary place. He was
speaking of his own personal delight. They could go up to the headland there and
have before them the sea, the sky, and that grand headland. It would be a
thousand pities if anything were done to detract from that glorious spot. He
thought if he were to take a visitor to any part of Folkestone where they would
have an appreciation of what Folkestone stood for, and for seeing something
they could enjoy, he would as soon take him to that place as any. Might he say
one word of compliment to those who had designed that most attractive building
which had been placed there. It seemed to him it was just the kind of building
to attract everyone there and enhance its amenities. In a growing residential
district, they knew how extraordinarily fast building had been going on there,
and it was essential that they should not have any influence that might become
detrimental to its character, or in any sort of a way might prove an annoyance
such, as he might say, a fully licensed house might become. Having said that,
might he go a step further and say it seemed to them no sufficient reason had
yet been given to the public to justify the transference of the licence. So
they would ask the Council to consider that matter seriously. They knew the
Council had a licence on its hands. That was no ground for the transference of
that licence to an unsuitable site. They did ask the Council to allow that to
weight with them and that they should lose whatever it might be if it might be
detrimental to Folkestone. He would go a point further. Supposing they said
they had decided on that matter having thought it well over, he would ask them
to say that what they stated would have some weight with them. If the Council
felt that that licensed house was really needed they should see that the
management would be under other management than that of the Corporation itself,
and then they would have some guarantee that the public authority was on the
side of the public, and the public would have a guarantee that whoever was the
licensee would have an inspector or an authority over them that would ensure
right and sound management of the licensed house. His brethren might not agree
with what he was now going to say. He had lived a good deal abroad – in Italy,
Germany, and France – and it had always seemed to him one of the great
attractions was the fact that they had ordinary cafes. They might say their
climate was against such cafes, but what had struck him most about them was
that people could go to those places, and inside or outside have their lager
beer or whatever it was. Supposing the Council were determined in proceeding,
he would ask that it would be a beer licence for that place. That was his own
opinion and not an outside opinion. He trusted they would allow those
circumstances he had mentioned to weigh with them before a final decision was
reached.
The Rev. J.A. Middleton said he would like to associate
himself with the remarks made by the Rev. Canon Hyla Holden, and to apologise,
in particular, for the absence of Dr. Carlile, who would have been there but
for an engagement in town. He had been asked to speak on behalf of the Free
Churches in particular, and to say that they agreed almost entirely with the
remarks made by Canon Holden. There were just one or two pints he would like to
stress. The occasion for seeking a licence for the East Cliff Pavilion seemed
to have arisen from that licence in the Radnor Street area being surrendered or
being bought. He supposed they would not have considered a new licence for the
East Cliff Pavilion. It seemed as though the fact that they had had to buy that
licence had led them to ask that it should be transferred to the East Cliff
Pavilion, and the hope at the back of it was that they should gain revenue. It
seemed to him a rather poor motive for urging that that licence was required.
The other point he would stress was that it was an unfortunate thing in his
judgement, and also in that of his friends, that a licence should be in the
name of the Corporation, because there could not be just the same oversight as
there would be in the case of a private licensee, because their officials were
somewhat hampered in giving that attention and perhaps in making complaints in
a way that they would not obtain if the licence was in private hands. The other
point he would urge was that they were representing a large body of churchgoing
people in Folkestone who participated unwillingly in the management of licensed
premises and very strongly did they object to a licence being taken out by that
Corporation.
The Rev. C.H. Scott said he was not in any way opposing
the legitimate drinking facilities to any class of the community. Not only
representing the people as he did, but as a resident in the East Ward, he
protested against the transfer of the licence to the Pavilion. They did not
want an ordinary public house at that spot. He asked the Council to consider
their neighbours and to ask themselves conscientiously, if they lived up there,
would they welcome that licence?
Councillor Pope said reference had been made to having
a licensed house there. He would like to know if the deputation thought it would
be an advantage to have a public house up there if they did not have that
licence transferred.
The Rev. Canon Hyla Holden: Personally I should prefer
that.
Councillor Bridgland said he would like to know if the
deputation had heard or seen anything recently at the Leas Cliff Hall to which
they could object.
The Vicar: I cannot answer that. It is the general
security to which we refer. The public would be more satisfied if the licence
holder were under the observation and the care and control of the Council
rather than the Council taking the licence.
Alderman King-Turner was proceeding to speak when
members interrupted.
The Mayor suggested to him that it was not the time to
voice his views; he should only ask questions.
Councillor Mackie asked whether the clergymen present
were expressing their own views or had they taken any vote in their
congregations on the matter at all?
The Vicar said he had taken a considerable measure of
views in the Parish Church, and he found a large number were opposed to that
particular transfer. He could only speak for them.
Councillor Kent: Are the people residents of the East
Cliff or other parts of the town?
The Vicar: Some are residents of the district. One was
a newcomer and he said he did not know that he should have come had he known
there was to be a licence there.
Alderman Franks said there was one point which should
be made perfectly clear to the deputation. It arose from the remarks of one
speaker. It should be made clear once and for all the Folkestone Town Council
was not the Police Authority. The Watch Committee were the statutory authority.
The other point was that they were not transferring a licence that morning.
They made the application, if the Council so decided, to the proper statutory
independent authority, quite independent of Folkestone. An outside Bench will
have to consider it.
Alderman Hollands: I should like to ask whether he
would not think it would be a better place to have a nice glass of beer in the
Pavilion than in the old Packet Boat? Surely it would not be better in the
Packet Boat?
The Vicar: I say so.
The Mayor said he wished to thank the deputation for
the very moderate and reasoned way they had stated their case. They might rely
on the Council that what they had said would receive the utmost consideration
from the members.
The Town Clerk said there were four communications. One
was from the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club, and was as follows:- “Dear Sirs, At the
annual general meeting of the Harbour Lawn Tennis Club held on the 21st
February, I was instructed to convey to your Council this expression of our
members` appreciation of the facilities afforded us by the East Cliff Pavilion.
At our last home match of 1934 we availed ourselves of the first possible
opportunity of using the Pavilion and were completely satisfied by the quality
of the refreshments and by the courtesy and excellent service given to us. I
have also to express our gratification that the General Purposes Committee have
recommended by 17 votes to ten the granting of a licence to the Pavilion. If
this recommendation is approved we shall be eager to avail ourselves of the
opportunity or returning to our visiting clubs in an establishment under the
control of the Council the hospitality shown to us when we are “away”. Yours faithfully,
V.W. Hillier, Hon. Secretary”.
The next communication was from Mr. R.G. Hook, of East
Lea, Wear Bay Crescent. It was as follows:- “Dear Sir, As a resident and owner
of property on the East Cliff, I strongly object to the proposed transfer of a
licence to sell intoxicating liquor at the East Cliff Pavilion. I consider the
facilities for drinking are quite sufficient in Folkestone generally and it
would be wise to leave this part free to those who can appreciate beauty
without needing stimulants”.
The next letter was from Mr. Hugh H. Chapman, who wrote
from Croydon: “51, Windmill Road, W. Croydon, Surrey. Dear Sir, As a great
lover of Folkestone, and a regular holiday-keeper in your neighbourhood, I have
been following with great interest the report in the local press of the
discussions over the licensing of the East Cliff Pavilion. I cannot understand
anyone opposing this suggestion who looks squarely at the position. Most of the
summer holidaymakers use the sands beyond the Fishmarket, and are at once
isolated from the amenities which should be theirs. There is absolutely nowhere
where one can take a lady for alcoholic refreshment without going back into the
town. To close one of those horrible little beer houses should be in itself an
asset and to open a modern refreshment bar should prove a great step forward
and a definite boon to users of the East Cliff. Surely it is not a retrograde
step to follow the present enlightened national movement to brighten public
houses. The fact that the licence would be controlled by the Council should be
an added safeguard against any possible abuse of alcohol. Personally I do not
think we have any need to worry about our young folks as they are perfectly
capable of looking after themselves. I certainly hope that Folkestone will
allow this wonderful opportunity to add to the amenities of what is, in my
opinion, the finest South Coast resort. I am, faithfully yours, Hugh S.
Chapman”.
Then there was the following petition: “We, the
undersigned ratepayers and owners of property in the immediate vicinity of the
East Cliff Pavilion, cordially support the action of the majority of the
members of the Council at their General Purposes Committee meeting, in
recommending the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street,
to the above Pavilion. A considerable number of your petitioners cater for
visitors, and we know from their remarks how desirable they think it is that
some arrangement should be made for the sale of intoxicating drink there,
seeing that the nearest public house is practically half a mile away. Under all
the circumstances we wish the proposal every success”.
The Town Clerk said the petition was signed by 127
tenants and 88 owners of property in the vicinity of the new Pavilion. A large
number came from East Cliff, Dudley Road, Wear Bay Road, Wear Bay Crescent,
Stanley Road, and Segrave Road.
Alderman Hollands: All immediately adjacent.
The Mayor said he recognised the signatures of
well-known people on East Cliff on the petition.
Councillor Kent: two signatures have not been taken
from one house.
Councillor Saunders moved as an amendment “That
paragraph 21 in the minutes be not approved, and upon the acquisition of the
Packet Boat Inn the licence in respect thereof be dealt with in accordance with
Section 14 (2) of the Housing Act, 1930”. He said that meant, in plain
language, that they should make an application to the Compensation Authority to
assess the compensation value, if any, of that licence. It seemed to him that
that was not a question so much as whether people in Warren Road, Thanet
Gardens, or Hasborough Road – (Councillor Hart: Or Sandgate Road) – are in
favour of a licence, but it was a question of whether they, as a public body,
were engaging in an undertaking of such a nature was of public benefit.
Councillor Bridgland put a question to the deputation when it was in the
Council Chamber a few minutes ago. He (Councillor Saunders) was going to say
quite unhesitatingly and with the knowledge and responsibility that in his
opinion the licence was a matter that was best left to the control of the
individual owner. (Cries of “Hear, hear”) He said that because he had had
something to do with trying to direct the control. (Alderman Hollands: You made
a mess of it)
Councillor Saunders: If Alderman Hollands had taken as
much interest in the Leas Cliff Hall as he has done in this matter, and if we
had had the benefit of his knowledge and the wisdom he had imbibed in licensed
premises, he would have added to our wisdom in the Leas Cliff Hall. Because of
that lack of service to the community, some of us have been left to do what we
thought best for the town. Proceeding, he said he was convinced they were
putting something forward that could be best left alone, which would give the
opportunity to the young people, and he spoke with some knowledge of young
people, having been the happy father of six, that they could best leave alone
and best keep out of their way the consumption of alcoholic beverages. He was
not a teetotaller, but he did hold that opinion very strongly because of what
he saw and what he knew, if they, as a local authority, should do something of
which in after years they would not be very proud. He suggested if that licence
was to be there and was a huge success financially it would be something they
would not be proud of because it would lead to a good deal of drinking and
conduct which they would not be proud of as a local authority. If it was not a
financial success and became something of which they would not be proud, it was
going to be a considerable financial loss to the Corporation. He suggested they
should weigh the matter up very carefully and each of them give a vote as their
conscience guided them, not as they may have certain friends expecting them to
vote, but in the real and best interests of the borough.
Alderman Stainer seconded the resolution.
Alderman Gurr asked what was the proposal made under
the Housing Act for surrendering the licence and what they got for it.
Councillor Saunders said the Town Clerk, at the meeting
of the General Purposes Committee, said they had the option of offering that
licence for a valuation. When they referred it to the Compensation Authority
they might put a value on it and they might not. It would mean another thousand
or two to the Radnor Street scheme. A thousand or two on the Radnor Street
scheme in comparison with the harm they were going to do on the East Cliff did
not matter.
Alderman Gurr wanted to know what it meant.
The Mayor: It means referring it to the Compensation
Authority for compensation.
Alderman Stainer said he would like the Corporation to
look at that question not from the point of view of finance only. They must
take a more grave line than that of possible return on their money. The Council
were the custodians of the good government of the borough in which they lived.
The way they treated the public, the facilities they gave them for good life or
otherwise, were the governing factors that ought to influence them in what they
did. It was quite a secondary matter whather they got any return for their
money or not, but it was much more important to him that the borough authority
should be engaged in the liquor trade. He was sure the views of the deputation,
as put forward by Mr. Middleton, were quite in keeping with the sentiments of a
vast number of people in the borough that they did not wish to be associated
with the sale of intoxicating drink. The question of the loss on the licence
had been discussed, but the value of the conduct of the public was vastly more
important than the value of the licence. He would be quite willing for the
value of that public house to be reckoned in the cost of the clearance of
Radnor Street rather than it be transferred to any other part of the borough.
Some people said that the enjoyment of the East Cliff and the enjoyment of
sports up there would be enhanced by the sale of intoxicating liquor to the
people who went up there. His life was beginning to be a long one, and he would
like to say emphatically that his experience was that the enjoyments of life
were enhanced more by restraint and complete abstinence from intoxicating
drink. He thought they could not give better pleasure to the public by being
retailers of intoxicating liquor, which, in his opinion, and that of many other
people, curtailed the enjoyment of life rather than enhanced it. He was sure
the Corporation would do well if they looked at that thing from an idealistic
point of view rather than a point of view of finance. He had great pleasure in
seconding the amendment, not from the point of view whether they were going to
lose any money, but for the good of the public. He had been Chairman of the
After-School Welfare, and it would be a lamentable thing if he was the first
one to introduce to the young life of the borough the habit of taking
intoxicating drink. If the Corporation undertook that, the Corporation could
not have clean hands in the matter of such an important thing as the lives of
the young people.
Councillor Chittenden said he should like to support
Councillor Saunders. He was in much the same position as he was, and had six
children of his own, and he should have more confidence in them if there was
not a licence than if there was a licence. He was there to represent his
opinion and his conviction of what was best for the young people of Folkestone
and the coming generation of Folkestone. He also thought he would not be doing
his duty if he did not vote against those arrangements for the transfer of the
licence to the East Cliff Pavilion. It differed from the Leas Cliff Hall in
that they did not have control of the licence up there as they did at the Leas
Cliff Hall. Councillor Saunders said it was not to the advantage of the young
people up there that they should have that licence. The licence at the East Cliff
was going to be exactly like an ordinary public house, and the facilities for
drinking would be greater. If anyone asked to put up an ordinary public house
on the East Cliff it would not be granted, and it was only now the Corporation
had thought anything about it.
Councillor Lillie said it was imperative he should say
something from the point of view of the Health Committee. It was their money,
and he was rather against the point of view that he had heard, and was rather
aghast at some of the expressions to which he had listened. The money to which
he referred was that which they would have to pay for the purchase of the
licence. Canon Hyla Holden said they should let that go. Councillor Saunders
said he would sooner see another £2,000 put on the Radnor Street clearance
scheme. The re-housing scheme was a philanthropic movement and as worthy a one
as the fight against intemperance. He thought that they were being pushed out
in the cold and forgotten in that matter. If they increased the cost of the Radnor
Street clearance scheme it was obvious that housing scheme would be curtailed.
They disliked very much to see the cost of the clearance scheme being increased
in that way. The re-housing was a necessary thing, and it was as essential from
the moral, health, and spiritual point of view as was temperance. The Council
was in danger of losing its balance and its perspective. It was unfortunate
that two philanthropic movements like that should be in competition with each
other, but he was sure he must say those temperance people, however reasonably
temperate they might be in their actions, were quite definitely stepping over
the mark. They were getting up a petition trying to get people to sign a paper
and authorising a London solicitor to appear on their behalf before the
Justices of the Peace when they were considering the removals of the Jubilee
Inn, Oddfellows Arms, and Ship Inn. What had that to do with that question? If
they succeeded in that it would simply wreck the Radnor Street scheme. It was a
wrecking movement. Why should they do that sort of thing? There was not the
slightest chance of them succeeding. They were hostile to the Committee and
they were unreasonable people. As long as they worked for the suppression of
drunkenness he took his hat off to them, but they seemed to be unable to keep
within the lines. They were becoming prohibitionists and it was filling him
with horror. There were many licensed victuallers who were doing a great deal
more to prevent drunkenness than many people in the temperance movement. They
had seen some of the greatest disasters in the history of the world due to
those meritorious virtue movements running to extremes. They would not get
within the lines.
Alderman King-Turner said he hoped the Council would
give a good majority on favour of the licence. He had lived in that
neighbourhood for many years and it seemed to him that anything for the East
Ward always seemed to have such a hard struggle to get through. The boarding
and lodging house people were having a very hard time and why should not they
have the same facilities there as they had in the west end? They were entitled
to them. He wanted everyone to be open and broadminded. In those days they had
got to be. A good many statements which he had in his pocket had been sent to
him in letters, that he had been sanctioning couples sitting out there on the
East Cliff. They would not be allowed to drink out there. They had thousands of
visitors up there, and the cry was “We wish we had a place for a quiet drink”.
They were entitled to some of the privileges they had in the west end.
Th Mayor said the matter would come before the
Licensing Justices, who would place restrictions on the licence.
Councillor Saunders: You have to ask for restrictions.
Councillor Barfoot: Is this a full public house licence
with facilities both inside and outside the building?
The Town Clerk: I have not seen the licence, but I
understand it is a full licence, on and off.
Councillor Fletcher: They could go there and take drink
away?
Councillor Kent: It is for us to decide whether it
should be an off licence.
Councillor Barfoot: If this licence is granted you
will, when applying, as for restrictions? That is my point.
Councillor Hart: Yes.
Councillor Barfoot said: “I have read the newspaper reports
of the proceedings of the Council when I was absent, and when I saw the names
of those who voted for Alderman Hollands` resolution I was amazed. For many
years it has been one of the principles of the Socialist Party to municipalise
public houses. It is surprising to see other members of the Council dancing to
the tune of the Socialists and voting for extending municipal trading in drink.
Reading the speeches of our Socialist colleagues, it is seen that they are not
very consistent. My friend, Mr. Gadd, for apart from his politics I esteem him
highly, is anxious to put the onus of transferring the licence on the
Magistrates. He must know he cannot shirk his responsibility in this way. He,
like the rest of the Council, is responsible for the effect of his vote today.
Alderman Hollands is even more inconsistent. In his speech he stressed the
point that the people should be trusted not to abuse the facilities for
drinking. At the end of the proceedings he pointed out that there is a
safeguard, as the licence is not an off licence, and he said “People would not
be able to go to the Pavilion, buy a bottle of beer, and then take it out with
them on to the cliff. He would strongly oppose anything of that sort”. How can
he reconcile this with his previous plea that you can trust the people, none
but himself knows. According to the worthy Alderman, people can be trusted to
drink a bottle of beer inside a building, but they cannot be trusted to drink a
bottle of beer under the vault of Heaven. The late Councillor Dallas Brett and
I opposed the erection of the Pavilion because in our opinion it was too large
and too expensive. It was never mentioned in the minutes of the Parks Committee
or in the debates in the Council that the building was intended for the sale of
intoxicating drinks. Alderman Franks told the Council the other day that it was
always intended to sell intoxicating drinks in the Pavilion. The present and
past Chairmen of the Parks Committee may think they were justified in not
mentioning this interesting fact at the time, but it was not fair to the
members of the Council. I remember distinctly the present Chairman of the Parks
Committee telling the Council that the erection of a Pavilion was a business
proposition, as it would pay. Evidently municipal finance is not one of his
strong points, as last year the loss was £958; and with a drink licence this
year the estimated loss is over £1,600. Have the supporters of this proposal
have any idea what the licence will cost the Corporation? I think not. The Town
Clerk told the Council that it was a full public house licence and the price
asked for the building and the licence was £4,693. The licence is therefore
worth £4,000. It would be better for the Council to surrender the licence and
get the compensation money than to transfer it to the Pavilion, for the
following reasons:- Alderman Hollands said he was opposed to drink being
consumed off the premises. If this is the half-hearted way you are going to
transact municipal trading in drink it can never pay. Last year, Johniie Walker
gave an exhibition of the Test matches. Thousands of people went to that show,
but according to Alderman Hollands you could not supply these people with
drinks while they were watching the play. Do the municipal traders intend to abstain
from doing a large trade of that sort in the future? Without you intend to do
all the business that comes in your way during the summer, the Pavilion can
never pay its way. Thousands of people come by motor buses during the summer. A
large proportion go for a drink directly they arrive. Are you going to attract
these customers? If you do attract them, respectable middle-class people will
not use the Pavilion, or want to live in the neighbourhood. I am opposed to
municipal trading, but specially municipal trading in drink. I am not a
teetotaller, and I think it would be a mistake if people thought that this
proposal was only opposed by teetotallers. One of my objections to the transfer
of this licence is that it will depreciate the value of property in the
neighbourhood. I believe I am the only member of the Council who has served on
a local authority in another part of England, and also I am the only member of
the Council who has seen, from close quarters, the growth of a town of 75,000
inhabitants into a great city containing a quarter of a million people. I know
that no local authority, no syndicate, or private person, who were developing a
residential district for the middle classes would allow a public house to be
built. It is axiomatical that a licensed house in a middle class district
depreciates the value of property. I oppose the resolution also because in the
long run it will adversely affect the rateable value of property in the
vicinity of the Pavilion. At the present time houses are being built and in a
short time the revenue in the form of rates will be considerable. Why retard
this increase in revenue or stop it altogether? Even if you make money out of
the sale of drink you will lose ten times as much in the loss of rateable value
in that district”.
Alderman Hollands described an interview he had had
with a lady who called upon him asking him to sign a petition against the
licence and who made allegations concerning the Leas Cliff Hall. Proceeding, he
said he believed Councillor Saunders was speaking his own mind that morning.
Councillor Saunders: Are you making insinuations
against me?
Alderman Hollands: My insinuations are as correct as
yours.
Councillor Saunders: Mine were based on facts.
Alderman Hollands: It is my opinion you are not a free
man this morning. When I go away I cannot afford to pay for a big lunch. If I
drop into a place for a lunch I have a bit of bread and cheese, a pennyworth of
pickles on a plate, and a pint of beer. That is a beautiful lunch. (Laughter)
Alderman Stainer has spoken about intoxicating drink affecting the enjoyment,
but as he says he has not tasted it how can he speak about it?
Councillor Kent said he had listened very carefully to
everything that had been said that morning, but there had been nothing to cause
him to alter his opinion. He welcomed the deputation because he thought they
were entitled to express their views on behalf of the people they represented.
He wanted to answer one or two points raised by the deputation and other
speakers. One was that the question of the transfer had not been submitted to
the ratepayers. Was the licence of the Leas Cliff Hall submitted to the
ratepayers? It was dealt with by the Council in the same way. One point he took
exception to, and that was that they were practically told that the Corporation
could not be trusted with a licence, and that they were not in a position to
control a licence. That was entirely wrong. It was a direct insult to the
Council to say that they could not be trusted to control a licence. There were
members who had been interested in licences for quite a number of years, and
there was not one black spot against the conduct of those licences. It was said
it would be far better in the hands of the Corporation. It was further stated
that it would be an ordinary public house, but that was entirely in the hands
of the Corporation to say, and also to say how they should conduct their
business. A private individual was in a licensed house to get his living out of
it, but they, as a Corporation, should not endeavour to transfer that licence
for the purpose of making huge profits, but it should be purely a matter of
providing facilities for both residents and visitors who used the Pavilion. The
nearest licensed house was half a mile away. Then there was the question of
vested interests to consider. It was possible, and highly probable, that
something else would be done on East Cliff. There were certainly people who
were waiting their opportunity, and their intention would be to build a large
residential club, and it would be one of the best pubs in the district. If the
Corporation had that licence up there they would probably prevent anything like
that happening. They would agree that it would be far more dangerous than
having a licence like that in the hands of the Corporation. He suggested that
if they made the application for the transfer they could ask for one condition,
and that was that it should be a licence to serve liquor to be consumed on the
premises only, so that would prevent any danger of liquor being taken out. With
regard to the petition in favour of the application being made, he could say it
was really bona fide and one of the strongest that had ever been presented
there. Every signature on it could be verified. He hoped the members would
again vote for making the application.
The Mayor said there was not the slightest reason why
the Council should not conduct equally as well as any individual a fully
licensed house. They were looked upon as model employers, so surely they could
see nothing should occur if the Licensing Magistrates granted a licence that
could in the slightest degree be detrimental to the very best interests of the
town. They were all concerned in the welfare of the town and he yielded to
no-one with regard to the safeguards for young people. To suggest that such a
licence was going to be the means of causing intemperance was a most
intemperate statement to make. He had not the slightest doubt that if the
application was made the Committe would ask for safeguards to be imposed.
The voting on the amendment resulted as follows: For,
11; Against, 22.
The recommendation of the General Purposes Committee
was then approved.
Alderman Stainer said in the event of the Packet Boat
licence being transferred to the East Cliff Pavilion he would like to know
whether the Committee would take the necessary steps to curtail the licence to
a degree that it should not be exercised as a full public house.
The Mayor: That is a matter for the Parks Committee to
consider.
Councillor Kent: On behalf of the Committee, I can
promise it will be taken into consideration.
Folkestone
Herald 9-3-1935
Editorial
The Folkestone Town
Council, by a majority of 11, has decided to seek the transfer of the licence
of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion, thereby
taking an advantage of the slum clearance scheme which surely its originators
had never intended. As we have said before, the mere accident of this clearance
scheme, by which a licence has become available to the Corporation, has been
used for the purpose of obtaining authority to seek the transfer of an
intoxicating liquor licence to the East Cliff Pavilion.
We maintain as definitely
as we have held hitherto, and nothing we have heard or read in the past few weeks
has altered our opinion, that a drink licence is wholly contrary to the very
character of this building. It is turning a very beautiful pavilion into
nothing more nor less than a public house, for whatever may be done in regard
to restrictions, which the supporters of the licence seem uncommonly anxious
to have imposed, this licence is simply an ordinary public house licence.
The beer which will be
sold in this pavilion will be similar to that obtained in any public house. The
conditions will be the same and no doubt the prices will also be the same. It
is in fact nothing more nor less, as we have said, than turning a very
beautiful pavilion into a public house, and we are absolutely convinced that
there will be a great number of people who for the very reason that drink is
being sold on these premises, will be very careful to keep away from them.
The obscurity of some of
the arguments advanced for this licence is surely sufficient condemnation of
it. If an ordinary public house licence is not sought for this pavilion, what
is the use of it during the winter months? Residents can go to any public house
and obtain drink as they will be able to do at the East Cliff Pavilion if the
licence is transferred, even if restrictions are made which prevent the sale of
liquor for consumption off the premises. We maintain that the Corporation has
done a definite disservice to the community by seeking to make available in a
building of very beautiful design and attractive appearance intoxicating
liquor for those who normally would not require it. The East Cliff is used very
largely by young people, and they do not normally require intoxicating liquor.
The Corporation is placing facilities into the hands of those young
people to obtain drink, and we have little doubt that, certainly in the summer
months, liquor will be supplied to many people because it is made available at
the East Cliff Pavilion, and not because they necessarily require it. Those 22
members who have voted for this licence for the East Cliff Pavilion may take
satisfaction to themselves that they will, in our opinion, spoil a building
worthy of the town, and one which the “Folkestone Herald” strongly supported
when the project for the erection, of the building was first mooted. As our readers know, we are not supporters of the teetotal element. We
believe that a man who wants a glass of beer should have it - if he can afford
to pay for it. We do not believe it is the duty of the Corporation to provide
drinking facilities in a summer pavilion of this type, neither is it within their province to compete with
the legitimate licensed victualler whose livelihood in the winter as well as
the summer months depends upon the custom of residents.
Folkestone
Express 29-6-1935
Tuesday, June 25th: Before Alderman R.G.
Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, and Mr. F. Seager.
Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks Superintendent of the
Folkestone Corporation, was granted a protection order in respect of the
licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, which it was stated had been
purchased by the Corporation in connection with the slum clearance area in the
district. The outgoing tenant was Mr. J. Sirrett.
Mr. Rutley Mowll made the application. He said he asked
the Magistrates to grant a protection order to Mr. Roden, who was probably well
known to the Magistrates. Mr. Sirrett was giving up possession that day. He
made a formal application that the Magistrates would waive the condition with
regard to the seven days` notice being given. The notice was given to the
Police on Friday concerning the application and they offered no objection.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said there should be a seven
days` notice, but a shorter notice might be taken by the Magistrates.
Inspector Pittock said the notice was served on the
police on Friday.
The Chairman: There has been nothing sprung on the
authorities?
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Rutley Mowll: It was the earliest possible moment
after the purchase was completed.
The Chairman: Then the property has been bought by the
Corporation. The purchase is completed and this is an application now in
respect of the change of tenancy?
Mr. Rutley Mowll: That is so.
The Chairman said he did not think the Magistrates required
any testimonials in respect of Mr. Roden. That was a protection order for which
Mr. Mowll asked in order that an application could be made at the next transfer
sessions.
Mr. Rutley Mowll: We shall ask for the full transfer to
be completed on July 10th.
The Chairman said the Magistrates granted the
protection order in the name of Mr. Roden.
The Magistrates also excused the attendance of Mr.
Sirrett at the transfer sessions when the application for the transfer would be
made.
Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.
Folkestone
Herald 29-6-1935
Local News
A protection order in
respect of the Packet Boat Inn, 59, Radnor Street was granted by Folkestone
Magistrates on Tuesday.
The property has been
acquired by the Folkestone Corporation in connection with the Radnor Street
Clearance scheme, and the protection order was applied for in the name of Mr.
G.E Roden (Parks Superintendent).
Mr. R. G. Wood was in the
chair, and the other Magistrates were Mr. F Seager and Dr. W.W. Nuttall.
Mr. Rutley Mowll said Mr.
John Sirett was the outgoing tenant and Mr. G.E. Roden, the new tenant. The
latter was probably well known to the Bench as the Parks Superintendent. Mr. Sirett was
giving up possession, and it was now necessary for the licence to be in the
name of Mr. Roden, on behalf of the Corporation. He therefore made formal application and also
asked them to excuse the seven days’ notice. He believed notice was given last
Friday to the Police and he understood they offered no objection.
Mr. R. G. Wood: I take it
this property has been bought by the Corporation? - Yes.
The purchase is complete,
and now it is a case of the Bench attending to the licence? - Yes.
This is a protection
order you are asking for this morning in order to meet the next transfer
sessions, and I take it then you will want a full transfer? - Yes.
The order was granted.
Mr. Mowll asked if the
outgoing tenant would be excused attending on the full transfer as he was
taking a licensed house elsewhere.
The Magistrates granted
the request.
Note: This is at variance with More Bastions
Folkestone
Express 13-7-1935
Local News
Seven Kent Magistrates of the Elham Petty Sessional
Division on Wednesday sat at the Folkestone Police Court and heard the
application of the Folkestone Town Council for the transfer of the licence of
the Packet Boat Inn, held for the last fortnight by Mr. G.E. Roden, the Parks
Superintendent, to the East Cliff Pavilion, and to be in the name of Mr. Roden.
There was considerable opposition, and the Magistrates, after considering their
decision in private for close upon half an hour, announced that they granted
the removal of the licence to the East Cliff Pavilion on the understanding that
all intoxicating liquors sold should be consumed on the premises as shown on
the plan.
The Magistrates were Col. E.R. Wayland, Major J.G.
Welch, Mr. J.J. Clayson, Col. D`Esterre, Mr. J. Cross, The Mayor of Hythe. And
Judge Terrell, K.C.
Mr. A.K. Mowll appeared in support of the Corporation`s
application.
Opposition to the application came from Mr. B.H. Bonniface
for the licensee in the immediate vicinity and the Licensed Victuallers`
Association, Mr. P. Philcox, who represented the Folkestone Temperance Council,
and the Rev. J.C. Carlile, representing the clergy and ministers and a number
of ratepayers.
Mr. Mowll said he appeared on behalf of Mr. Roden, who
had been granted protection to sell at the Packet Boat Inn by the Bench of
Licensing Justices. The application was for a special removal of that licence
as a fully licensed house to the East Cliff Pavilion, which was about 800 yards
from the site of the Packet Boat Inn. The Corporation purchased the Packet Boat
Inn and two adjoining cottages for £4,300, one of the properties included in
the Folkestone Radnor Street No 1 Confirmation Order, 1934. As a matter of fact
those premises actually formed part of a new road, so that it would absolutely
necessary for them to be pulled down. The East Cliff Pavilion was built
recently by the Corporation, and cost between £7,000 and £8,000 to erect. It
was situate, as the Bench probably knew, on the East Cliff, and was a most
beautiful building. The present construction was to be very little altered.
There was a large refreshment hall, the centre of which was used also for
dancing, and on the sea side of it were the premises that were going to be
altered. That portion was at present used as a hat room and would be the bar.
They would see the counter in it from the plan. A portion of the lavatory was
going to be converted into a store. The public would have access there to the
entrances shown on the side of the premises and as shown on the interior of the
premises. The premises he was asking to be licensed were shown on the plan
coloured pink.
The Corporation, having purchased the Packet Boat Inn
for such a large sum of money, thought they ought to use it for the best
advantage of the ratepayers, and therefore they were asking for that special
removal under section 24 of the Licensing Act, 1910. The Magistrates had to
consider two points. One was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person.
They had already heard that the licence had been granted to Mr. Roden. He was
the Parks Superintendent for the Borough, and one could hardly imagine a more
suitable person to hold a licence. The second point was whether the premises
were fit and convenient for the purpose under sub-section 4 of section 24,
which dealt with the special removal of a licence.
He was going to ask them to insert a clause in regard
to the licence, and that was that there should be no selling for consumption
off the premises. The present licence was a full licence, and the licensee
could sell on or off the premises. It was thought, having regard to all the
circumstances, that it would be better for that condition to be inserted, and
he at once said the Corporation was only too willing for that to be done.
There were no licensed premises anywhere near those
premises. The Packet Boat Inn was roughly 800 yards from the East Cliff
Pavilion. The East Cliff Tavern was 700 yards away, the Lifeboat, North Street,
820 yards, the Jubilee, Radnor Street, 820 yards, the Ship Inn, Radnor Street,
830 yards, the Oddfellows, Radnor Street, 870 yards, Royal Oak, North Street,
780 yards, the Raglan, Dover Road, 920 yards, the Martello, Dover Road, 930
yards, the Railway Tavern, Dover Road, 1,020 yards, and the Swan, Dover Road,
1,080 yards. The nearest licensed premises to those premises was thus the East
Cliff Tavern, which was 700 yards away. He did not know whether the Bench were
acquainted with the premises. They were in a part of the town that had recently
been developed. People in the season went there in thousands; there was a large
stretch of sand nearby. Very great inconvenience had been suffered in the past
by people not being able to get any reasonable efreshment. He asked that they
would grant the application subject to that condition.
Mr. C.F. Nicholson, the Town Clerk, said the Packet
Boat was one of the properties in the Order, and there were three other
licensed premises in the area, and the Corporation acquired the Packet Boat
compulsorily. They gave for the Packet Boat Inn and two adjoining cottages
£4,300 as the compensation. A very considerable part of that figure represented
the value of the licence. The premises known as the Packet Boat Inn were to be
pulled down under the Housing Act for public purposes. It was in the view of
the Corporation that they would be lacking in their public duty if they did not
make the fullest use of the licence, and they came to the conclusion that it
should be removed to the East Cliff Pavilion. They had a licence in regard to
the Leas Cliff Hall subject to special conditions. The East Cliff Pavilion was
situated on the East Cliff and was erected at a cost of between seven and eight
thousand pounds. It was replete with every comfort for persons requiring
alcoholic refreshment. It had been found that there was a considerable
drawback, particularly in regard to luncheons, when people found they could not
have intoxicating liquors. There had been many complaints and enquiries. In a
place like Folkestone it was rather an anomaly that a hall like that should not
have the opportunity to provide the public with alcoholic refreshments. Mr.
Roden, who was the Parks Superintendent, would be the actual licensee,
therefore the whole licence would be under the eye of the Corporation. In his
view there was a real need for such a licence.
Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining: I think in the first
place the pavilion was built with no idea of having a licence?
Mr. Nicholson: I should not agree to that. It was known
when the hall was being built that these licences were likely to be acquired.
At that time it was thought there would be four licences.
When it was built there was no idea of applying for a
licence for it? – No, sir.
Was it not said so by members of the Council? – They
might have said so.
Was it ever taken into consideration by the Council
when the hall was being built that it would be necessary to apply for a new
licence? – I do not think the Corporation would have ever considered applying
for a new licence.
Because of the impossibility of getting one? – No,
because of the monopoly value.
Did you advise the Council in your opinion it would be
impossible to obtain a new licence? – I probably did, and I still hold that
opinion.
And, of course, by getting this licence removed it
means that the Council will save monopoly value? –Certainly.
You would have had to pay for the licence of these
premises in any event? – Yes.
It is simply a matter, because they had got to pay for
that, the Corporation thought they would take advantage of it? – Yes.
There was another course which might have been taken?
It might have been surrendered? – Yes.
Or it might have been sold to another person? – Yes.
And that person could have come and applied for the transfer?
– Yes.
In answer to further questions from Mr. Bonniface, the
Town Clerk said the Catering Sub-Committee first recommended the transfer. Then
the Parks Committee decided to refer the matter to the General Purposes
Committee. That Committee by 17 votes in favour and 10 against decided that
they would refer a recommendation for the application for the transfer to the
Council. That resolution was confirmed by the Council by 22 votes to 11. There
was a considerable amount of opposition from ratepayers before the Council, and
there was a number of letters in both directions before the members. They had
had complaints that intoxicating liquors could not be obtained and served with
lunches at the Pavilion, but those complaints had not been made to him.
Mr. Bonniface: Would you be prepared to have endorsed
on this licence that intoxicating liquors should only be served with meals?
Mr. Nicholson: No.
When asked by Mr. Bonniface how bottles would be
prevented from being taken out, Mr. Nicholson said “I hesitate to answer that
question. I am not experienced in such matters, but I understand people like to
see their beer poured out”. (Laughter)
Mr. Bonniface pointed out that a number of people used
the Warren and the sports ground round about, and Mr. Nicholson replied “We
definitely do not wish, and shall not allow, people to take bottles of beer
from the Pavilion into the Warren”.
The Clerk (Mr. Rootes): There will be a staff in the
Pavilion?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, an adequate staff.
In reply to further questions by Mr. Bonniface, the
Town Clerk said there had been no difficulty with regard to getting a licence
at those premises in the winter months for dances. They had used the Leas Cliff
Hall licence for that purpose. The licence for the Leas Cliff Hall prohibited
the Corporation selling off the premises.
The Chairman (to Mr. Nicholson): Have you had any
trouble at that Hall by bottles being served over the counter?
Mr. Bonniface: I am not suggesting that.
Mr. Philcox, cross-examining Mr. Nicholson: You have
had a little trouble with regard to the Leas Cliff Hall?
Mr. Nicholson: In what way?
You have had to change the licensee at one time? – Ever
since we have been doing the catering the licence has been in the Entertainment
Manager`s name.
Before the Council the Chairman of the Committee
responsible said from his experience at the Leas Cliff Hall he did not think it
was desirable for the Corporation to have another licence? – That was his
opinion.
There has been some little trouble there? – Yes. It was
usually from people not those who had spent the evening at the Hall, but those
who came there at the closing of the other licensed houses, and when they got
there they were refused admission, or had gained admission and had to be turned
out.
Some weeks ago there was someone arrested for making a
nuisance of themselves at the Hall with a horn?
The Town Clerk pointed out that they were not charged
with being drunk. They were undergraduates who had been blowing a horn on the
Leas. He added that the Corporation had thought it best that buildings under
their control should have proper supervision, and therefore a plain clothes
officer had been in the Hall. Continuing, he said Mr. Roden would not be there
all the time, but there would be other people there supervising the
intoxicating liquor trade. He was not suggesting that Mr. Roden would spend a
lot of time there.
Mr. Philcox: I think the rent of the Packet Boat is
£35?
The Town Clerk: I believe so.
What do you think would be the rateable value of the
Pavilion? – I have no idea; it is not rated at the moment.
You will admit it will be more than £35? – I do not
know.
I believe £200 was the amount mentioned in Council? – I
believe that was it.
Is that a likely figure? – I do not know. I am not a
valuer.
The Pavilion was really intended to be a restaurant? –
Yes, it was, I suppose. All sorts of refreshment can be obtained there, lunches
and teas.
Was it not really only desired to sell intoxicating
liquor with food? – No, certainly not.
You would object to that condition? – The Council
anticipated that if the licence was removed that they would supply intoxicating
liquor.
Is it intended to bar children from the Pavilion
altogether? – No, certainly not. Children will not be allowed into the bar.
Liquor will be consumed in the main hall where children
will be admitted? – Certainly.
Will there be any part of the hall only for those who
do not desire intoxicating drink? – It is not proposed to divide between
intoxicating and non-intoxicating refreshments.
Is it proposed to sell liquor on all seven days of the
week? – Yes.
In reply to further questions by Mr. Mowll, the Town
Clerk said there were a very large number of houses springing up in the
district since East Cliff had been developed. There had been no serious trouble
with regard to the catering since the Corporation had taken over the Leas Cliff
Hall. The Corporation had had representation from two sports clubs on East
Cliff stating that they would like to have refreshments, including intoxicants,
supplied in the Pavilion.
Councillor James H. Kent, 284, Cheriton Road, said he
was an off-licence holder. He was Chairman of the Parks Committee, which was
dealing with that matter. He was well acquainted with the licensing laws and
thought that licence at the East Cliff Pavilion was very necessary,
particularly in view of the complaints they had had and the applications they
had during the time they had been supplying luncheons and suppers. There was
the golf and tennis people who used the golf course and the tennis courts who
desired such refreshment, and the Corporation would be willing to accept the
condition that there should be no selling for consumption off the premises.
There would be no difficulty in providing fresh and sufficient cloakroom
accommodation, although it was proposed to take one room for the bar. They had,
in fact, provided alternative accommodation.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bonniface, witness said golf had
been played on East Cliff for several years. Two years before they built the
East Cliff Pavilion one of the golf clubs made an application to the Committee
to be allowed to erect a small club-room so that they might use it, and that
undoubtedly so they could obtain intoxicating liquor. That was held over.
Mr. Bonniface: You had probably in mind a new licence?
Councillor Kent: We had in mind there might be four
licences, and that we might make use of one of them.
What has happened in the course of the last two years
to create the extraordinary demand for this licence? - East Cliff has developed, as you know, and
then again the building was erected as a general utility building. At present
we can supply everything with the exception of alcoholic liquor. My Committee
and the General Purposes Committee looked at it from every angle and felt we
should have a licence.
You think the development of the East Cliff in the last
two years has created the demand? – Yes, because the development has caused a
larger number of visitors to go up there than in previous years.
It does not come to anything like 50 houses? – I do not
know about that.
With the extension in building on East Cliff, do you
think there would be any hope of your succeeding in getting a new licence for
the Pavilion if you had applied for one?
Would you agree with me that it would be impossible to get one? – I
should say of the Corporation were prepared to pay the monopoly value it would
be worth it, and I should say a licence would be granted.
Dr. Carlile said he should like to ask the Town Clerk
and Councillor Kent questions.
Mr. Nicholson was thereupon re-called.
Dr. Carlile asked the Town Clerk if complaints had been
received from people living quite close to the Leas Cliff Hall as to persons
coming out late in an undesirable condition.
Mr. Nicholson said he was aware that there had been
complaints.
In your judgement, and having that experience
concerning the Leas Cliff Hall, do you think it at all desirable that the
Committee responsible for the Pavilion should be granted a licence for it? – I
think you would have similar complaints anywhere. When they come away from a
dance they would not come away quietly/ It is not due to drink.
Unlicensed halls do not give us anything like the
occasion for protests and extra care that licensed halls do? – I do not know
anything about that.
I would like to ask whether last night the Leas Cliff
Hall had an extension for a dance? – I am afraid I do not know what was going
on.
Can you tell the Bench whether you have had any
complaints about it? – I have not heard any complaints this morning. I should
be surprised if there was a dance on Tuesday night.
It may have been on Monday? – I do not think so.
The Clerk said Friday evening was the last occasion on
which there was an extension of licence.
Councillor Kent was also questioned by Dr. Carlile. He
said he held an off licence at Morehall.
Dr. Carlile: Those premises are the only licensed
premises between Cheriton and the Central Station?
Councillor Kent: Yes.
Do you think the number of people going along that road
would be any the less than those who went along the East Cliff? – No.
Therefore the licence was not required more than the
one at Morehall? – I do not know, but the answer to that is that one lot of
people pass and the others stay on the East Cliff.
Mr. Bonniface, in addressing the Bench, said he had
wondered whether the application to them was really an application for the
genuine supply to persons who might be their visitors and attending at that
hall, or whether it was an application to allow the removal to that beautiful building
of a licence which was to be used as an ordinary public house subject only to
the endorsement that intoxicating drink should not be consumed off the
premises. In other words, were the local authority setting up as publicans with
the endorsement on the licence that intoxicating drink should not be consumed
off the premises, and that part of that case was that the district had so
increased that another licence was required in that district. That would be
certainly a matter he would have to bring before them if the Corporation were
applying for a new licence. If that was what the Corporation proposed to do,
surely there was a principle involved there, and that was; Were the Corporation
going to set up in opposition to some of their largest ratepayers, people who
had a difficulty in carrying on their businesses and paying their rates? They
were told there were thousands of visitors on the East Cliff, and if that
licence was granted they were going to take away from the licensees in that
district what they ultimately had in the past. There was no evidence before
them that those visitors would increase because there was a beautiful pavilion.
There was nothing before them at all to show that the visitors had had some
inconvenience in obtaining their intoxicating liquor. Had the applicants been
prepared to agree to the condition that intoxicating drink should only be
supplied with lunches his opposition would have gone. All they said was that
they wanted a public house licence with the exception that they would not allow
intoxicating liquor to be taken outside. There was another point which they
should take into consideration, and that was a note of Patterson on Section 27,
which dealt with that particular application. Mr. Bonniface then read the note
which had reference to whether the Pavilion could be described as being
substantially the same premises as those for which the licence was held at
present.
The Clerk: That does not help you much.
Mr. Bonniface said it was for the Magistrates to say
whether the Pavilion was substantially the same premises. If they were not
substantially the same then the application should be for a new licence, and
the Exchequer would be entitled to a monopoly value if those premises were not
the same.
Mr. Bonniface was continuing his argument, quoting from
Patterson, when Judge Terrell asked him “Do you find it in the Act?”
Mr. Bonniface: These are the notes in Patterson.
Judge Terrell: The notes are nothing but the editor`s
notes.
Mr. Bonniface: That is so.
Judge Terrell: They are not in the Act.
Mr. Mowll: There is not a single word in Section 24 of
the Act concerning what Mr. Bonniface has said.
Mr. Bonniface concluded by saying that that application
should be treated on its merits and that it should be as a new licence and dealt
with in that way.
Dr. Carlile said he represented the ministers and
clergy, including the Vicar of Folkestone, and in addition the Chaplain of St.
Andrew`s Convalescent Home. From the proceedings that morning the Bench would
have seen that that really was an application for a public house with a
restriction concerning the sale of drink off the premises. There were certain
special objections to it. They had heard a great deal about the need. When some
of them were in Court before, and the application was made for the renewal of
the four licences in the area which was to be re-built, they were told there
was no question of redundancy, and that was not a matter to be considered. Had
some of them had the opportunity they would have said there was a question of
redundancy. Within five minutes` walk there were 18 licensed houses. The
Magistrates had heard from where the old Packet Boat Inn stood to the East
Cliff Pavilion it was only 800 yards. If the Bench went through the Harbour to
the East Cliff Pavilion, they would pass five licensed houses on the way, four
of them with back entrances in another street. If they went along Radnor Street
in the best conditions they would pass three licensed houses in that street
alone, and one of them, according to the generosity of the Corporation, would
be a corner site. If the Bench went another way they would pass one licensed
house at the bottom of the Tram Road, and four other houses within five
minutes. Within ten minutes` walk they would have four or five opportunities of
getting a drink. It could hardly be said there was a growing need for people
who went along that way. The opposition knew the need and they knew the
neighbourhood, and they wished to emphasise the fact that if the need exists,
the Corporation, through the Parks Superintendent, was not the body to supply
that need. They wished to emphasise that very strongly for a variety of
reasons. They did not want, and they represented a large body of ratepayers,
the Town Council competing with the publicans on ordinary lines. It was one
thing at the West Cliff Hall, where intoxicants were served to people who
attended the concerts, dances, and so on. There was nothing of that kind on the
East Cliff, but dances, which sometimes went on until early in the morning, had
been held there, and the little experience was not to the good when licences
had been grated there. It was really a surprising thing to some of them when it
was stated very definitely in connection with the Leas Cliff Hall licence that
intoxicants should not be served for consumption off the premises, that by some
means intoxicants could be sold at the East Cliff Pavilion through that licence
held by the Corporation. There was nothing to prevent the Committee, in view of
past experience, and what they knew of that Committee they would do so, of
supplying intoxicating drink at the Chalet in the Warren through the licence at
the Pavilion.
The Clerk: Every time they wanted such a licence they
would have to apply for it.
The Rev. Dr. Carlile: There is nothing to prevent them
carrying on in that way.
Proceeding, Dr. Carlile said they agreed that Mr. Roden
was an admirable man, and anyone who knew his splendid work as a gardener could
have the least idea that he could not give supervision to a trade about which
he knew nothing, and they also suggested that a Committee of the Corporation
was not the most desirable body to carry on a public house. They said from
their experience if an ordinary publican had conducted his premises as the Hall
on the Leas had been he would probably have lost his licence. Anyway, there
would have been serious complaints about the conduct of the premises. He
suggested it was unfair to expect a police constable, who was partly
responsible for the conduct of the Hall, to make complaints about people who
were his employers. If there had to be a licence for that Pavilion, it would
be, he suggested, a straightforward thing if there had been an application for
a new licence, but they knew there would not be the ghost of a chance of
getting that, but that application was an afterthought. The Corporation had a
certain licence, and the question was what they could do with it. They might
have sold it. The Chairman of the Parks Committee, being in the trade, thought
it was a good thing, and the Corporation ought to stick to it. It might be a
large number of ratepayers very much objected to being mixed up with the
ordinary business of a public house. He represented no temperance organisation,
but the clergy and ministers, and they had behind them a large number of
ratepayers. Their view was that if the need could be substantiated – the did
not think it could – of allowing the Pavilion to be a public house according to
the application of Mr. Mowll, supported by the Town Clerk, then they should let
it be provided by the brewer and a proper publican. At the present time the
East Cliff Hall was for the provision of teas and light refreshments, and one
of the needs for which it was built was the provision of toilet accommodation
for women and children. They had heard there was no proposal to exclude
children from those premises. They submitted that it was not at all desirable
that the premises should be utilised as was suggested. A number of women would
not take their children to a place that was an ordinary public house. They
believed the Council had made a mistake over the matter. The Magistrates had
heard the different figures regarding the voting, and the members were not at
all unanimous. Some members of the Council had spoken very strongly in opposition.
The Committee responsible for the Pavilion did not seem to do very well, for
according to the published figures they made a loss for which they were
responsible. If they could not make a profit on those premises without a
licence, then they as ratepayers did not want to make a profit in that way.
He had to do with Dr. Barnardo`s Home, which was
probably the largest building nearest to those premises. They knew the
character of that Home, a lovely institution for little children from the homes
of the poorest of the poor, and when people came down to see those children
they did not want to see a public house nearby. Then St. Andrew`s Convalescent
Home, which was for patients all over the place, was also comparatively close.
Those premises would be an easy walk from the Home, and those connected with
the Home did not want that licence granted.
The Rev. C.H. Scott, Vicar of St. Michael`s, said his
opposition represented the views of residents in the district. It was not based
on the temperance or teetotal question. He had no objection to public houses in
ordinary streets in the town with all the legitimate and moderate trade. In
fact, he encouraged the idea so long as the men were moderate. The one salient
fact that emerged was that that property was being pulled down in Radnor Street
for town development, and a public house was going begging, consequently the
majority of the Town Council decided to have a new type of public house in a
new place. He suggested that an application for a new licence should have been
made for such a place, but why had that not been done? Because they knew it
would never have had a chance of being successful.. That stood out as the
salient point. The ministers were united on the matter. “That is a most
remarkable thing”, the speaker said, “Dr. Carlile and I have never been
together in our lives, and never will be again”. (Laughter) Proceeding, he said
he lived on the East Cliff. That licence was being obviously sought for the
serving of drinks. He would have agreed to drinks being allowed with meals, but
that suggestion was quite bluntly turned down. Drinking freely in the Pavilion
on Sunday and weekdays, with no restrictions, was not a pretty picture, and not
many residents of the East Cliff would desire it.
Mr. Philcox said he represented an entirely different
view – the view of the Temperance Council – who had canvassed the neighbourhood
to see what support they could get. As a result he had been instructed to write
to a large number of people near the East Cliff Pavilion, and he had got a
large number of retainers there. In addition, there was a petition signed by
476 residents.
Judge Terrell: Have you seen your clients? You have not
seen all these?
Mr. Philcox: I do not think any solicitor sees all his
clients. His clerk does that.
Judge Terrell: Have you seen any of them?
Mr. Philcox: No.
Judge Terrell: Then you cannot prove the signatures,
and they cannot be produced.
Mr. Philcox was questioned about the petition, and the
Chairman asked him if he took it round himself. He replied that he did not, and
the Magistrates then decided that the petition could not be put in.
Mr. Philcox said all who had signed were local
residents. They were persons resident in the area of the East Cliff. He
submitted it was quite obvious that the residents would not like a public house
there, because it was a residential district. If the Pavilion was going to take
people away from their meals it was not going to be of benefit to boarding
houses. He submitted that if the removal was granted, then intoxicants should
only be served with food at tables on the premises. He did not think that would
be any hardship to the Corporation, but it would meet the views of a large
number of ratepayers.
Mr. Mowll said he had been able to get the figures
regarding the population in the area in reply to an enquiry by the Magistrates.
The population was 1,650, and the number of houses was 330. Those figures did
not include Radnor Street and The Durlocks.
The Chairman: I understand the police have no
objection.
Chief Inspector Pittock: No, sir.
The Bench were absent for close upon half an hour
considering their decision, and when they returned the Chairman said “The Bench
have agreed that the licence should be removed and granted on the understanding
that all liquors sold should be consumed on teh premises.
Note: Dr. Carlile asks us to say that in his question
to the Town Clerk in reference to a dance on Tuesday night, it was obviously
the East Cliff Pavilion to which he referred, and not the Leas Cliff Hall, as
the replies by Mr. Nicholson and the Magistrates` Clerk would indicate.
Folkestone
Herald 13-7-1935
Local News
An application by the Folkestone Corporation for the removal of the
licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to the East Cliff Pavilion, East
Cliff, was granted on Wednesday.
The Corporation presented its application to a special Bench of County
Magistrates at the Folkestone Police Court. Colonel E.R. Wayland sat with the Mayor of Hythe (Councillor E.C.
Smith), Mr. J.J. Clayson, Mr. James Cross, Major J.G. Welch, Colonel J.C E.
D’Esterre, and Judge H. Terrell, K.C.
Before the application was made by Mr. A.K.
Mowll, of Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, on behalf of the Corporation, the
Magistrates granted the transfer of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to Mr. Geoffrey
Ernest Roden, the Parks Superintendent, who had been granted a Protection Order
last week. Mr. B.H.
Bonniface opposed the Corporation's application on behalf of licensed
victuallers in the immediate district and also the Folkestone and District
Licensed Victuallers" Association, and Mr. E.H. Philcox, of London,
represented the Folkestone Temperance Council.
Many clergy and ministers were present in court, including the Vicar of
Folkestone (Canon Hyla Holden) and Dr. J.C. Carlile. Dr. Carlile stated that he was representing
the clergy and also a number of ratepayers.
Mr. Mowll said he appeared on
behalf of Geoffrey Ernest Roden, who had had granted to him by the Bench the
licence of the Packet Boat Inn, and the application now before the Court was
for a special removal of that licence as a fully licensed house to the East
Cliff Pavilion, which was situated about 800 yards from the site of the Packet
Boat Inn. The Corporation had purchased the Packet Boat Inn and the two adjoining
cottages for £4,300 as part of the properties included in the Folkestone Radnor
Street No. 1 Housing Confirmation Order, 1934. As a matter of fact those
premises actually formed part of a new road so it would be absolutely necessary
for them to be pulled down.
The East Cliff Pavilion was built recently by the Corporation at a cost of
between £7,000 and £8,000 to erect. It was situated on the East Cliff and was a
very beautiful building. The
present construction had to be very little altered if the building was licensed.
There was a large refreshment hall in the centre of it, and it was also used
for dancing, and on the sea side of it were the premises which were going to be
altered - at present they were used as a hat room - for the bar. A portion of the lavatory was going to
be converted into a store and the public would have access to the bar through
the entrance at the side of the premises.
The Corporation, having purchased
the Packet Boat Inn for a large sum of money, they thought that they ought to
use it to the best advantage of the ratepayers, Mr. Mowll continued, and were
therefore asking for that special removal under Section 24 of the Licensing
Act, 1910.
There were two points which he thought the Justices would have to consider
and one was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person, although they
had just granted the licence of the Packet Boat Inn to Mr. Roden, who was the
Parks Superintendent for the Borough, and they could hardly imagine a more
suitable person to hold a licence. Secondly, they had to consider whether the premises were fit and convenient
for the purpose, for sub-section 4 of Section 24 of the Act said, “A special
removal of a Justices’ licence may be
authorised to any premises within the same licensing district as the premises
which it is desired to move the licence, if, in the opinion of the Licensing
Justices, they are fit and convenient premises for the purposes”. He was going to ask them to insert a
condition with regard to the licence and that was that there should be no
selling for consumption off the premises. The present licence was a full licence, and the licensee
could sell on or off the premises, but it was thought that having regard to all the facts it would
be better for that condition to be inserted, and they were only too willing
that that should be done.
There were no licensed premises anywhere near the East Cliff Pavilion.
As they had heard the Packet Boat Inn was roughly 800 yards from the East Cliff
Pavilion and there were a number of other houses, and he proposed to give them
the distances they were situated from the East Cliff Pavilion. The East Cliff
Tavern was 700 yards away: the Lifeboat Inn, North Street, 820 yards; the Jubilee Inn, Radnor
Street, 820 yards; the Ship Inn, Radnor Street, 830 yards; the Oddfellows Inn,
Radnor Street, 870 yards; the Royal Oak, North Street, 870 yards; the Raglan,
Dover Road, 920 yards; the Martello Inn, Dover Road, 930 yards; the Railway
Tavern, 1,020 yards; the Swan Inn, Dover Road, 1,080 yards. So they would see
that the nearest licensed premises to those premises was the East Cliff Tavern,
which was 700 yards away. He did not know whether the Bench
were acquainted with the East Cliff Pavilion, but that part of the town had
recently been developed. People in the season came down in their thousands to
the large stretch of sand close by, and they would have evidence brought before
them of the great inconvenience which had been suffered in the past by people not
being able to get any reasonable alcoholic refreshments. He asked them to grant the application
subject to the condition he had already mentioned.
The Town Clerk, Mr. C. F.
Nicholson, was then called by Mr. Mowll. He said that the Packet Boat Inn had
been purchased with two cottages adjoining for £4,300. A considerable part of
that figure represented the value of the licensed premises. The Packet Boat Inn
was to be pulled down, and the Corporation had decided to make the full use,
if possible, of the licence which they had had to purchase. Mr. Nicholson
stated that the Corporation had a licence in respect of the Leas Cliff Hall,
subject to certain conditions. The East Cliff Pavilion was built at a cost of
between £7,000 and £8,000, and it was complete with every comfort. A number of
complaints and enquiries, however, had been received because they were unable
to serve intoxicating liquor with lunches at the Pavilion. Mr. Roden, who
would be the licensee, was Parks Superintendent to the Corporation, and
therefore the holding of the licence would be more or less under the eye of the
Corporation.
Mr. Mowll: In your view there is a real need for such a licence? - I
believe that there is.
Mr. Bonniface: I think in the first | place the Pavilion was built with
no idea at all of having a licence? - I should not care to say that. It was
known when the place was built that these licences were likely to be acquired
in the Radnor Street area.
Mr. Bonniface: But the hall was built with no idea of having a licence
there? - That is not so.
Did not various members of the Council say so at a meeting? - They may
have said so.
Responsible members, Chairmen of Committees? - Not the Chairman of the
Committee concerned.
Was it ever taken into consideration when the hall was built that it
might be necessary to apply for a new licence for this building? - I don’t
think the Corporation ever considered applying for a new licence.
Did you yourself advise the Council that in your opinion it would be
almost impossible to obtain a new licence? - I probably did and I still adhere
to that view.
In getting this licence transferred the Council will save paying
monopoly value? - Yes, but we shall have to pay for the licence.
You would have to pay for the licence of the Packet Boat in any event,
wouldn’t you? – Yes
.
Another course might have been taken - it might have been surrendered or
sold to another person? – Yes.
I think the Catering Sub-Committee first of all recommended this
transfer? - Yes.
And then the whole of the Parks Committee decided that they should not go on with it? - They did.
The Parks Committee, in fact, will be the people who more or less will
have control of Mr. Roden and the licence? - Yes.
And then on February 6th the Council decided to refer the matter to the
General Purposes Committee? - Yes.
And the General Purposes Committee, by 17 votes to 10 against? - Those are the correct figures deciding to
refer it to the Council.
It was confirmed by the Council by 22 votes to 11? - That is correct.
There was considerable opposition from the
ratepayers of the borough before the Council made that decision? - Yes.
And there was a considerable amount of evidence
heard against the proposal? - Yes, letters in both directions came in.
We have heard from Mr. Mowll that you have had
complaints that intoxicating liquor cannot be obtained and served with
lunches? – Yes, but of course they have not been made to me personally.
Would you be prepared to have an endorsement on this licence to the
effect that intoxicating liquor should only be sold at meals? - No.
Taking the plan which is before the Bench, there is provision for a bar
to be made and there will be an entrance from one side, where one of the existing
lavatories is? - I believe that it is so.
And the bar is placed rather at the rear? - It is more at the side.
Was it suggested in the Council that it would only require one man to
conduct the business from there? - I don’t remember that.
If it only required one, it would be extremely difficult to supervise a licence on
which there was an endorsement that intoxicants were only to be consumed on
the premises, for people could get out easily on to the cliffs? - Surely you
need not let people take bottles away with them; you need not supply the
bottle.
Would you agree to an endorsement that they should not be supplied with
any bottles? – I hesitate to answer that question. I am not very experienced in
these things, but I understand people like to see their beer poured out.
(Laughter)
Replying to a further question, the Town clerk said the Corporation did
not intend to let people take bottles away with them into the Warren.
Mr. Bonniface said so far as these thousands of people they had heard
about from Mr. Mowll, they were only there during the summer, and it was practically
a fixed population on East Cliff in the winter.
The Town Clerk replied that that was so.
Mr. Bonniface: There has been no difficulty in getting a temporary
licence during the winter months for dances at the pavilion? - There has been
no difficulty.
You have used the Leas Cliff Hall licence? - We have, but I cannot say
how many times.
Do you put a condition in the contract that if anybody hires the hall
for a dance they shall use your licence at the Leas Cliff Hall? - Yes.
Mr. Bonniface: Although your Leas Cliff Hall licence prohibits you
serving off the Leas Cliff Hall, doesn't it? - Yes.
The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): An undertaking was given that nothing
should be served off the premises.
The Chairman asked if there had been any trouble, such as bottles being
taken out of the Leas Cliff Hall.
The Town Clerk: No.
Mr. Bonniface added that he was not suggesting that that had happened.
Concluding his cross-examination, Mr. Bonniface said to the Town Clerk:
“You are not suggesting the premises from which you are proposing to remove
this licence are in any way comparable with the premises to which the licence
is being removed?”
The Town Clerk: No.
Mr. Philcox: You have mentioned that this is not the only way by which
you can get your money back? - That’s right.
You have had a little trouble with regard to the Leas Cliff Hall,
haven’t you? - In what way?
You have had to change the licensee at one time, haven’t you? - Ever since
the Corporation has been, doing the catering there the licence has been in the
name of the Entertainments Manager.
At the Council meeting the chairman of the committee responsible for
the Leas Cliff Hall said that from his experience of the Leas Cliff Hall he did
not think it was desirable for the Corporation to have another, licence, didn’t
he? - That was his opinion.
The Chairman of the Entertainments Committee opposed this removal, and
he gave as his reason his experience at the Leas Cliff Hall? - He may have
done, I cannot remember what they all said.
Mr. Philcox again asked the Town Clerk if there had not been trouble at
the Leas Cliff Hall, and the Town Clerk explained that the trouble had been
caused by people who had not been spending the evening at the hall but people
who had come there after closing time from other licensed premises and had
either been refused admission or, having gained admission, had been turned out.
Mr. Philcox then asked the Town Clerk if it was not a fact that a few weeks
ago two young men who had been to the hall were not arrested outside.
Mr. Nicholson said the two men had been making a nuisance of themselves
in the hall with a hunting horn, but there was no suggestion that they were
under the influence of drink.
Mr. Philcox: Don’t you have to have detectives or police officers in
plain clothes up there? - There is someone there to keep an eye on the
building. The Corporation consider that as it is a building under their control
there should be proper supervision.
No one would suggest that Mr. Roden is not a thoroughly desirable
person, but will he be on the premises all the time? - Not all the time.
Will he be about on the premises? - He will be there frequently.
Is it not a question of using his name as Parks Superintendent? - There
will be other people there supervising the intoxicating liquor trade. I am not
suggesting that Mr. Roden is going to spend a lot of time there. He is in
charge of the department running the building.
I think the rent of the Packet Boat Inn was about £35 a year. What is
the rateable value of the Pavilion? - I have no idea; it is not rated at the
moment.
Would it be considerably more than £35, £200, I believe, was suggested
in the Council? Is that a likely figure? - I really don't know, I am not a
valuer.
Is it not only desired to serve intoxicating liquor with food? - No,
certainly not.
Would you object to such a condition? - I am quite sure the Council
anticipate if the licence is removed that they will be able to sell
intoxicating liquor at other times than meals.
How are you going to deal with the question of the bars? Are you going
to bar children altogether from the building? - Children will not be allowed
into the bar.
Mr. Philcox: But liquor will be consumed anywhere?
Mr. Nicholson said it was not proposed to divide the building up into
“non-intoxicating liquor” and “intoxicating liquor” sections.
Is it proposed to sell intoxicating liquor on all seven days of the
week? - Yes.
Would you object to a condition that there should be no Sunday trading?
- I should, and I think the Council would.
Mr. Philcox questioned the Town Clerk as to the accommodation when
dances were held and suggested there had not been enough room in the cloak
room.
The Town Clerk said there had been some trouble when the number of
people present was greater than the hall would properly accommodate.
Mr. Mowll (re-examining): Am I right in saying a very large number of
houses have gone up in the district since the East Cliff has been developed? - Yes.
And I suggest this road improvement of yours will still further increase
the number of houses? - There is certainly development going on there.
There has been no trouble in regard to the catering at the Leas Cliff
Hall since you have taken it over yourself? - No serious trouble.
Are there several golf and tennis clubs using the pavilion? - Yes, and
we have had representations from two of the clubs that they would like to have
refreshments there.
Councillor J. H. Kent, of 284, Cheriton Road, Folkestone, Chairman of
the Parks Committee, said he was the holder of a licence in Cheriton Road, and
was thus well acquainted with licensing matters.
Mr. Mowll: What do you say about the licence at the East Cliff Pavilion? - I think myself it is very necessary, specially
in view of the complaints we have had, and the applications we have had during
the time we have been serving lunches and suppers. Then again there are the
golf and tennis people who use the golf course and the tennis courts, because
quite large numbers of them have also asked for a licence.
Mr. Mowll: A question was asked the Town Clerk about the cloak room
accommodation? - We have already provided alternative accommodation larger
than the existing room.
Mr. Bonniface, cross-examining, said: You have told us that golf and
tennis clubs have mentioned this matter. Golf has been played on the East Cliff
for several years. There has been no difficulty for those people getting a
drink. They did not ask you to apply for this licence? - Two years before we
built this Pavilion one of the golf clubs made application to the Committee to
allow them to erect a small hut or club room for their private use, and that
was undoubtedly for them to obtain intoxicating liquor under a Club Licence.
You had in mind of course that you might put one of those rooms aside
for these clubs, for a club licence? - Not necessarily, we have a club room
already.
You did not consider the demand at that time sufficient for you to apply
for a new licence on the East Cliff? - No,
not for a new licence.
Then what has happened in the course of the last two years to create the
extraordinary demand we have got now? - In the first place the East Cliff has
developed and the Pavilion was erected as a
general utility building, and at present we cannot supply intoxicating liquor.
My Committee and the General Purposes Committee looked at it from every point
of view and they decided we needed it.
The Parks Committee turned it down, didn’t they? - By a very, small
majority.
But they did turn it down, didn’t they? - Yes.
Then you think the development of
the East Cliff during the last two years has created a demand for it? - Yes, because
the development has caused a larger number of visitors to use the East Cliff within the last two or three years.
Would you say the development was as many as 50 houses? - I don’t know.
I would put it to you that there has been nothing like 50 new houses? - I
don’t know about that.
As a licensee yourself would you agree it would be practically impossible
for anybody successfully to ask for a new licence? - I think you know as well
as I do that new applications are very warily granted to-day.
With the amount of building on the East Cliff do you think there would
be any hope of your succeeding in an application for a new licence? - I would
not like to say.
Would you agree with me and say it would be impossible? - No, I should
say if the Corporation were prepared to pay the monopoly value it would be
worth it, and I should say in all probability the licence would be granted.
At this point the Town Clerk returned to the box in order that Dr.
Carlile might have an opportunity of putting certain questions to him.
Dr. Carlile said he expected the Town Clerk and the Justices were quite
aware that a number of people who like him-1 self lived upon the Leas,
comparatively close to the Leas Cliff Hall, had made complaints upon various
occasions to the Committee as to persons coming out late at night in an
undesirable condition. Continuing, he said: I would like
to know whether the Town Clerk is aware of that?
The Town Clerk: Yes, I am aware of of that.
Then I would like to ask further, in the judgment of the Town Clerk if
with the experience that he shares with me, only much more so concerning this
hall, he thinks it at all desirable that the Committee now responsible for this
pavilion should be granted a licence for other premises in the neighbourhood? -
I think you would have the same complaints
if no intoxicating liquor was sold at the Leas Cliff Hall at all. When they
come away from dances they don’t come away very quietly, I am afraid.
That is a matter of opinion, but the Town Clerk will agree with me that
unlicensed halls have not given us anything like the occasion for supervision
and extra care that the licensed halls give us? - I don't know about that.
Dr. Carlile asked whether it happened that last night there was a dance
at the Leas Cliff Hall (Dr. Carlile meant to say East Cliff Pavilion).
The Town Clerk replied that he did not know what was going on there last
night.
Dr. Carlile: Then the Town Clerk is not able to tell the Bench whether
there was any complaint as to what happened early this morning after that dance.
The Clerk (to the Magistrates): No extension was granted for a dance at
the Hall last night.
The Town Clerk: I should be very surprised if there was a dance there
last night.
Dr. Carlile: It might have been Monday. In the event of the licence
being granted our chief gardener, a gentleman of character and very great
ability as a gardener, I would like to ask the Town clerk whether he knows that
Mr. Roden has any knowledge at all of the conduct of licensed premises? – No.
Cross-examining Councillor Kent, Dr Carlile
said: I would like to ask him if he noted the figures given by Mr. Mowll of the
distances of the licensed premises at the bottom of the town from the East
Cliff Pavilion? - Yes.
Do these figures include the off- licence held
by another member of the Town Council in Warren Road? – I could not say. The
premises in Warren Road are an off-licence only.
The Clerk said that the figures did not
include those premises.
Dr. Carlile said Councillor Kent lived in the
Cheriton Road, at Morehall, and had off-licence premises. He asked Councillor
Kent whether between the Central Station and those premises there was any other
licensed house.
Councillor Kent: No.
Do you think tne number of people who pass along the road would be any
less than the average number who pass along the road from the lower end of the town to the East Cliff? - No less.
Mr. Mowll : The answer is that one
passes along and the other stays.
Councillor Kent: Quite.
Mr. Bonniface, addressing the Magistrates, said towards the end of the
application he had been wondering whether the application was really application
for the genuine supply to persons who might be their visitors and who were
attending the Hall, or whether it was an application to allow the removal to
this beautiful building of a licence which was to be used as an ordinary public
house, subject only to an endorsement that intoxicating liquor should not be
consumed off the premises, because the district had so increased. That would be
a matter which he or anyone else would have to bring before them when applying
for a new licence. If that
be the case, surely there was a principle involved there and that principle
was: Were the Corporation going to set up in the business of some of their
largest ratepayers, people who had difficulty in carrying on their business and
also had to pay heavy rates, and during a portion of the year going to take
away from those licensees what they had legitimately had in the past? There was no
evidence before Magistrates to show that people in the past had experienced
inconvenience in not being able to obtain intoxicating liquors. Had the
Corporation been prepared to accept an endorsement to the licence that drinks
should only be supplied at lunches the majority of his opposition would have
gone. There
was another point which they had to take into consideration, and Mr. Bonniface
then referred the Magistrates to a note in Paterson’s Licensing Acts dealing
with removals and the powers
of the licensing justices relative togranting and refusing special removals,
which, he said, had been subject to considerable controversy. Provided they
were empowered to grant a licence at all there were three points which the
Justices should consider. The first was: Is the licence holder a fit and
proper person? To that there could be no objection, commented Mr. Bonniface. The next point was: Were the premises
to which it was proposed to transfer the licence fit and convenient? That was
for the Magistrates to consider. Thirdly, were the new premises substantially
similar in construction to those from which the licence was being removed? Mr. Bonniface submitted that if the
premises were not substantially the same they should say that the application
could not be dealt with as a special removal but an application should be made
for a new licence on which monopoly value would have to be paid.
The Corporation had to purchase the licence whether they would or not;
the licence was there. They had to purchase it under their scheme; it was one
of the premises they had to purchase and for which they had to pay full
compensation. They had other methods of recovering that compensation. Turning to the question of the similarity
of the premises, Mr. Bonnifece said the Magistrates should ask themselves if
these were substantially the same premises, premises which were rated at £35 In
one case and rising to £200 approximately. They were removing the licence from
premises which, with two cottages, cost £4,300 to a building which cost £7,000
to £8,000 to build. Were they substantially the same?
Judge Terrell: Do you find it stated in any Act that they should be substantially
the same premises?
Mr. Bonniface: No.
Judge Terrell commented that Mr. Bonniface had based his submission on
notes made by the editor of the book.
The Chairman said he understood it had a very wide application.
Mr. Bonniface: I agree, but it is supported not only by the notes of
the editor but by a number of decisions.Continuing, Mr. Bonniface said the
evidence they had in front of them, the evidence of the Town Clerk, was that
there was a certain drawback in regard to not being able to supply intoxicating
liquor with lunches. He suggested that the Magistrates knew the position
probably as well as he did: these were premises situated on East Cliff, away
from most of the houses. They were asked to transfer a licence, a licence which
was going to oe used during ordinary public house hours subject to one
restriction. In conclusion he submitted that
the matter should be treated on its merits and an application made for a new
licence.
Dr. Carlile said he represented the ministers and clergy who were there,
including the Vicar of Folkestone, the Vicar of Christ Church, and a number of
other Vicars, and the whole of the Free Church ministers of the area in
addition to Father Maconechie, who was Chaplain at St. Andrew’s Convalescent
Home, near to the Pavilion, and the Vicar of St. Michael’s, who was a resident
nearby and who would like to say a word or two after he had spoken. From the proceedings that morning the
Bench would have seen that that was really an application for a public house
licence with a restriction of the off-licence which the Corporation had agreed
to. As a public house licence there
were certain special objections to it there. They had heard a great deal about
the need. When some of them were in court before and an application was made
for the renewal of the four licences in the area which was to be rebuilt, they
were told there was no question of redundancy, and that that was not a matter
to be considered. Had they had the opportunity they would have said that there
was a question of redundancy in that area. Within five or six minutes’ walk there
were 18 licensed houses and they had heard that from the place where the old
Packet Boat Inn stood to the East Cliff Pavilion was some 800 yards. If the
Bench walked from Harbour Street to the East Cliff Pavilion they would pass
five licensed houses on the way, four of those with back entrances into another
street. If they went along Radnor Street, under the best conditions, the new
conditions, they would pass three licensed houses in that street alone, and one
of them, according to the generosity of the Corporation, very close to the
Sands which they had which they had heard ought to be supplied. One of those
new houses would be on a corner site much closer to the Sands than the East
Cliff Pavilion. If the Bench went along Beach Street and North Street they
would pass one house at the bottom of Tram Road and four others within five
minutes’ walk. Allowing that it was 10
minutes’ walk from one end to the other, they would have four of five
opportunities of getting a drink within only five minutes of reaching the East
Cliff Pavilion. It could hardly be said that there was that great need for
people who went along that way. They
knew the neighbourhood pretty well and they questioned the need; they wished to
emphasise that if the need existed, the Corporation, through their Parks
Committee, was not the body to supply that need, for a variety of reasons, one
of which had been brought forward by his friend Mr. Bonniface. They did
not want to see the Town Council competing with the publican on ordinary lines.
It was one thing at the Leas Cliff Hall where intoxicants, according to the
licence, could be supplied to people who came in to concerts, dances and for
refreshment. There was nothing of that kind at the East Cliff Pavilion. Dances
held there were known, and some of them apparently unknown to the people responsible, and they sometimes
went on until early in the morning.
Dr. Carlile said some of them were surprised to know that the Leas Cliff
Hall licence was being used for the East Cliff Pavilion, although an undertaking
was given when that licence was granted that it should be for supply only on
those premises.
Agreeing that that was so, there was nothing to prevent the Committee in
view of past experience, agreeing to supply
the Chalet in the Warren with intoxicants with the licence which they would
have at the East Cliff Pavilion.
The Clerk to the Magistrates: They would have
to apply for it.
Dr. Carlile said he knew that, but there was
nothing to prevent them carrying on that business and adding to the number of
licensed premises in the neighbourhood. They felt that with an absentee landlord, Mr. Roden, admirable man that
he was, anyone would realise that he could not give sufficient time to the
supervision of a trade which he knew nothing about. They suggested that a Committee of the
Corporation was not the most desirable body to carry on a public house. They
said from their experience that if an ordinary publican had conducted his
premises as the Hall on the Leas had been conducted, he would probably have
lost his licence. In any event there would have been serious complaint about the conduct of his premises. He also
suggested it was unfair to expect a police constable, who was partly
responsible to a Committee of the Corporation, to make complaints about people
on Corporation premises. If there was to be a licence there at all they
suggested that application should be made for a new licence, and they knew
there would not be a ghost of a chance of any such licence being granted. That
application was an afterthought. The Corporation had certain licences. The
question was: What could they do with that one? They might have sold it. They
thought they could do better with it. The Chairman of the Parks Committee,
being in the trade, knew the value of it, and he thought it was a good thing
and the Corporation ought to stick to it. It might be that a large number of ratepayers
very much objected to being mixed up with the business of a public house. He
did not represent any temperance organisations. The view that he represented
was that if the need could be substantiated - they did not think it could - but
if it could, then let the brewers and distillers build their own premises and
not have Corporation premises used for such purpose. At the
present time the East Cliff Pavilion was for the provision of teas and light refreshments for people
with their families and their children, and one of the things that weighed considerably was the provision of toilet accommodation for women and
children. They had heard from the Town Clerk there was no proposal to exclude
children from those premises. How they were going to manage it, he suggested,
Councillor Kent would put them wise, but they submitted it was not at all
desirable that the premises should be used for those two purposes or that
children should be excluded. A number of women would not take their children to a place that was an
ordinary public house.
They wanted to be in harmony with the Town Council. They did not want to
arouse any criticism, but they believed the Town Council had made a mistake.
The Committee responsible did not seem to do very well with the premises under
their control, and according to the published figures last week they made a
loss on each one of the premises for which they were responsible, but they did
not want them to make a profit this way.Concluding,
Dr. Carlile referred to the presence in the neighbourhood of the Bruce Porter
Home (Dr. Barnardo’s) and the St. Andrew’s Convalescent Home. He mentioned that
people came down to see the children there, and they did not want a public
house nearby. The St.
Andrew’s Convalescent Home was within easy walk of the pavilion, and they did
not want something put into that pavilion so that patients from the Home could
go in and out of the pavilion for quite a different purpose to the one
intended.
The Vicar of St. Michael’s (the Rev. C.H.
Scott) said his opposition was not based on the temperance or teetotal
question; in fact he had no objection to the public house. He contended that
from every standpoint an application for a new licence should have been made.
Why had not such an application been made? Because, as their opponents had
told them, such an application would not stand the slightest chance of being
granted. The
Rev. C. H. Scott referred to the unity of opinion of the ministers and added
that it was a remarkable thing, for Dr. Carlile and he had never agreed on any
question before and probably they would never agree again. (Laughter) It had
been suggested that the serving of drinks should be confined to meals and he,
for one, would agree to that, but that suggestion had been rejected on the part
of the Corporation.
Drinking in a building like that weekday and
Sunday alike would not make a pretty picture, and he was sure many residents on
East Cliff did not desire it.
Mr. Philcox said he represented the view of
the Temperance Council. They had canvassed the neighbourhood to see what
support could be got and the result was the list of retainers which he had
there. A petition had also been signed by 476 residents. He was instructed by
all those people who had signed the retainers. They were local residents,
residents living in the East Cliff area. It was quite obvious the residents in
the area did not wish to have a public house up there, for it was a residential
district. The only condition offered by the
Corporation was that the licence should be endorsed so that drinks should not
be served for consumption off the premises. He asked the Magistrates not to
grant the application unless further conditions were agreed. He further submitted that there should
be no bar at all. It was a condition of many restaurants where drinks were
served that there should be no bar.
Mr. Mowll stated that he had ascertained that
there were 1,650 people living in the district and 330 houses.
The Chairman: I understand the police have no
objection whatever?
Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock: No, sir.
The Magistrates retired and were absent some
time. On their return the Chairman said: The Bench have agreed to the
removal of this licence on the understanding that liquor shall only be consumed
on the premises.
The Clerk said a condition to that effect
would be inserted in the licence register.
Editorial
A Bench of Magistrates from the Elham Petty
Sessional Division and one Magistrate of the Folkestone Bench heard arguments
on Wednesday for and against the application of the Folkestone Corporation for
the special removal of the licence of the Packet Boat Inn, Radnor Street, to
the East Cliff Pavilion. Opposition of a vigorous nature was forthcoming from
the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers, from clergy, and from the Temperance
party. Having heard the case for the Corporation and the submissions of the opposition, the Magistrates granted the removal, subject to a restriction that
intoxicating liquor may not be sold for consumption off the premises. We do not
intend to make further comment upon the question of whether a licence for this
pavilion is or is not necessary. We are satisfied that, the licence having teen
granted, it will be very carefully used and there will be strict supervision
of the pavilion by the Parks Committee
and the license holder, Mr.G. E. Roden. We understand that confirmation of the
special removal of the licence is not required, as would be the case with the
granting of a new licence. The pavilion undoubtedly meets the needs of a
large holiday-making public assembling
at this period of the year daily on the East Cliff, and we have little doubt
that the amenities provided there will be greatly appreciated. Whether the licence
will induce still more people to use the pavilion or not remains to be seen
.
 |
| Picture from Folkestone Herald |
No comments:
Post a Comment