Agenda and minutes

The Panel is requested to elect a Chairperson for the hearing in line with rules agreed by the Licensing and Safety Committee. 

Councillor Browne was elected Chairperson for this meeting.

There were none.

To agree that the Chairperson, after consultation with the other members of the Panel, sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

It was agreed that the Chairperson, after consultation with the other Members of the Panel, would sign the record of this meeting outside the meeting. 

The Chairperson will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct. Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 5.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

To consider a new Premises Licence application for The Monarch Local, 18 Arden Street, Gillingham following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a new Premises Licence for The Monarch Local, 18 Arden Street, Gillingham, Kent ME7 1HG. The application was for:

• Off sales of alcohol - Monday to Sunday 24 hours

• Late night refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003. Representations had been received from Public Health in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, Kent Police in relation to all four licensing objectives and two members of the public. It was reported that the applicant has agreed conditions with Trading Standards and the location within the Gillingham High Street Cumulative Impact Area was noted.

The Chairperson invited the applicant and their representative to speak in support of their application.

The applicant’s representative explained that the applicant had taken over the premises and intended to convert it to a convenience store. The Panel was informed that the applicant was an experienced licence holder who already ran a nearby premises and had knowledge of the local area.

The representative acknowledged the location of the premises in the cumulative impact area and the concerns of residents and explained that it was now proposed to amend the hours for the off sales of alcohol from Monday to Sunday 24 hours to Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00.

Permission was granted by the Panel to distribute a document including an updated operating schedule and new set of conditions at the request of the representative. All parties were provided with a copy of the document and the meeting was adjourned to allow time for this to be read.

The Panel requested clarity regarding the application due to the changes proposed and it was confirmed that the applicant was now requesting the off sales of alcohol – Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 23:00 and no late night refreshments so the premises would be closed between 23:00 and 07:00.

The representative explained that with regards to street drinkers the applicant knew the local street drinkers from the other premises he operates in the area and they do not visit his premises. The representative went on to say that the condition not to sell single cans or bottles of beer, lagers, stout and ciders above 6% ABV would address concerns about street drinkers and the convenience store would be positive for the area and provide choice for customers.

The Licensing Officer clarified that the existing licence for The Monarch Local public house was in the name of Sheperd Neame and had not been transferred. It could be transferred but there were more than 20 onerous conditions that would need to be complied with. This was separate from the applicant and there were no guarantees it would be transferred although the representative said that they had consent from the previous licence holder to transfer the licence.

The Chairperson then gave the objectors the opportunity to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 446.

To consider a full variation application for a Premises Licence at Strood Mini Mart, 93 Bryant Road, Strood, ME2 3ES following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had submitted a full variation application for a Premises Licence at Strood Mini Mart, 93 Bryant Road, Strood ME2 3ES.

The Panel was informed that the current premises licence was for the sale by retail of alcohol between 06:00 and 23:00 every day. The application was to vary the current hours for sale by retail of alcohol to 24 hours and to add late night refreshment between 23:00 and 01:00. Between the hours of 01:00 and 05:00 it was proposed the store would be open for outgoing deliveries only, with no public access permitted.

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from Environmental Protection, Kent Police, Public Health, and 22 members of the public. Since making their representation Kent Police had withdrawn it as the applicant had agreed to recommended opening hours of Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00 and to add various conditions which were set out in supplementary agenda item to Appendix D.

The Chairperson invited the applicant and their representative to speak in support of their application.

The applicants representative explained that there had been some changes made to the hours requested in the application and it was now proposed that the premises would open Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00 application and the request for late night refreshments from 23:00 to 01:00 had been withdrawn. The Panel was informed that the intention was to open from 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday and to allow the collection of outgoing deliveries only from 23:00 to 06:00. The concerns regarding public nuisance were acknowledged and the representative explained the number of deliveries collected would be approximately 3 or 4 per night, drivers used electric vehicles and were managed by their respective delivery operators (Uber Eats/Deliveroo etc) and would not cause any disruption.

The Chairperson then gave the objectors the opportunity to question for the applicant and their representative.

Barbara Murray queried how the representative knew that all drivers would use electric vehicles and how many deliveries were anticipated per night. In response the representative said that all delivery drivers used electric cars or bikes now and this can be seen on the street. He also explained that they anticipated a delivery roughly every 1.5-2 hours during the night.

Members of the public queried where drivers would park when collecting deliveries as parking was very difficult to find in the area and asked if customers could go and collect their own orders. They were informed that there would be somewhere for the drivers to stop when collecting orders and that orders could only be collected by delivery drivers and not customers direct. Members of the public also queried the number of deliveries per night and were informed by the representative that this would be approximately 3 or 4 per night.

Clarification was sought as to whether customers would be able to visit the premises between 23:00 and 01:00  ...  view the full minutes text for item 447.

It is recommended that the Panel exclude the press and public from the meeting during the decision-making process for the reasons set out in the report. 

Decision:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making in respect of agenda items 6 and 7 because consideration of this matter in public would disclose information falling within paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as specified in agenda item 8 (Exclusion of the Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Panel considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.