Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new premises licence to request the supply of alcohol on the premises at Morrisons M Local (formerly Medway Queen), Churchill Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME5 0DE.  A representation has been received from Ward Councillors on behalf of their constituents.

Discussion:

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the Hearing and asked those present to introduce themselves. He then drew attention to the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for a new premises licence in respect of Morrisons M Local, Churchill Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME5 0DE

The application sought:

This application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed on the premises for the required timescale.

This application had been put to the Panel for consideration because of a representation received from the Ward Councillors, Councillor Craven, Christine Godwin and Osborne, which related two of the licensing objectives as follows:

·        the prevention of public nuisance

·        protection of children from harm

The following documents were included in the report:

• Appendix A: pages 9 – 23: a copy of the application submitted.
• Appendix B: page 25: floor and site plans of the premises.
• Appendix C: page 27: plan showing location of the premises.

·        Appendix D: pages 29-30: copy of the representation.

The Applicant advised the Panel that Morrisons Supermarkets PLC operated in excess of 600 stores throughout the United Kingdom. This application was for a Morrisons M Local which would be a convenience store. The application had sought the 06:00 to 00:00 hrs as these were the standard opening hours and standard ‘supply of alcohol – off the premises’ hours applied by Morrisons to the M Local stores. However following discussions with Kent Police, these hours had been reduced to 06:00hrs to 23:00hrs. Morrisons operated a great number of premises licences across the UK and many of those were operated within densely populated or challenging areas. Some premises were in close proximity to residences and included being sited directly underneath residences. Morrisons as a company had huge expertise and experience in managing licensed premises. The Applicant had worked for Morrisons for five years and during that time the company had not received any reviews or prosecutions under the Licensing Act 2003 and this was evidence of their expertise. Every member of staff undertook induction training and refresher training. Refresher training was also in place during peak times such as school holidays or public events. The company also operated the Challenge 25 initiative and, in addition, employed another company to ‘mystery shop’ to ensure that the initiative was being used by staff. If a member of staff was found not to be applying the initiative then additional training had to be undertaken. A CCTV system would also be installed at the premises in line with the requirements set out by Kent Police. Morrisons had originally submitted an application for the Medway Queen site in July 2013. At the same time an application to Medway Council for the premises to become a Designated Community Asset was applied for and granted. Applicants to take up the management of the premises had been advertised for but none had come forward. The company who owned the premises had subsequently contacted Morrisons who resubmitted their licensing application. Kent Police had lodged representations and, in consultation, Morrisons had agreed to reduce the opening hours of the premises and had accepted the suggested conditions.

The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised the Panel the information with regard to the representations from Kent Police could not be included in the documentation for this meeting as an agreement had been reached with Morrisons. The acceptance of Police representations meant that this was part of the consultation process and was therefore not the reason that the application had been brought before the Licensing Hearing Panel.

The Applicant continued that she was grateful for the explanation from the Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer as Morrisons had agreed to the suggestions from the Kent Police and they had therefore withdrawn their representations. The Applicant noted that no representations had been received from the Council’s Environmental Services officers in relation to noise nuisance, no representations had been received from the Safeguarding of Children team regarding the protection of children from harm and, in addition, no representations had been received from members of the public. The letter from the Ward Councillors contained strong opposition to the proposed opening hours of the store and the opening hours had since been reduced. Concern was also expressed about the proximity of the store to residences and noise nuisance. The Applicant reiterated that Morrisons operated similar premises throughout the UK in similar circumstances. No reviews had been received in the last five years which evidenced the absence of any particular problems. The Applicant noted that behaviour away from the premises was a personal responsibility in law and not the responsibility of the management of the premises. The issue of light fell under planning control and would come under planning enforcement if there was a problem. The Applicant was unsure about the noise issue raised in the Ward Councillors letter as she felt the premises would not cause undue noise. Morrisons operated a litter policy that applied to the inside and the outside of their stores. In addition 20 employment opportunities would be created in the locality. In relation to the lack of local consultation, on 16 July 2014 Morrisons had written to Ward Councillors as the representatives of the local community, and had spoken with Cllr. Osborne who had advised, and the Applicant accepted this was hearsay, that he would rather not have the premises as an empty shell. On 31 July 2014 Morrisons met with Cllrs. Craven and Christine Godwin who had requested that a recompense of £250,000 for the community be considered by Morrisons. On 21 August 2014 Morrisons emailed Cllrs. Craven and Christine Godwin advising that Morrisons would not engage with the community on a financial basis but would be happy to engage in charity projects in support of the community. The Applicant explained that Morrisons had looked at other available premises in the area but none had been considered appropriate. Morrisons were also aware of the need to fit into a community.

The Panel then asked a number of questions and the Applicant responded as follows:

• A Panel Member asked the Applicant if there would be a premises supervisor and if she could elucidate on the training undertaken by staff and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). He considered that whilst he was aware it was not a requirement, it was a good idea for all staff to hold a personal licence.

The Applicant advised that the DPS would hold a personal licence and the DPS would be Kelly Nicholls or one of her team. Premises employees had not yet been appointed so as yet training had not been undertaken. In addition, it was standard Morrisons’ practice to have 5 personal licence holders attached to each premises.

The Licensing Manager for Morrisons advised that the management team would undertake 10 weeks of training that would include Challenge 25 awareness, first aid, health and safety and a number of other subjects. It was intended that there would always be a duty manager present on the premises.

• A Panel Member asked that with regard to the reduction of hours for off sales of alcohol to 23:00hrs, would the opening hours of the store be reduced in the same way.

The Applicant confirmed that this was the case.

• A Panel Member asked the Applicant about her discussion with Kent Police and what objections had the Police raised to the application.

The Applicant stated that she had met with Detective Constable Angus at the site of the former public house (Medway Queen) and she had been advised that there was a historical issue with crime and disorder in the area. There was a high proportion of supported housing and a high density of benefit recipients and the area had needed continual police management. The police had suggested a reduction in opening hours and any additional conditions that Morrisons had agreed to accept. Further to a comment from the Panel Member that the Police appeared to support the comments for Ward Councillors, the Applicant stated that the Police had highlighted historical issues in the area and had withdrawn their representations on receiving agreement from Morrisons on the reduced hours and additional conditions.

• The Chairman enquired if it was intended that the new premises would have door security. He referred to the Morrisons store in Princes Park, Walderslade which has this facility.

The Applicant advised that the only Morrisons M Local store that had door security was in York and door security was only present on certain days of the week in addition to during certain events such as race days. The premises in Princes Park was a large or ‘core’ store and the premises licence did not contain a condition for the provision of door security. However each Morrisons core store was risk assessed in relation to the need for security after being open for 3 months. Activity within a 2 mile radius of the store was monitored and if security was considered necessary then Morrisons would install appropriate measures. If the police had concerns about the proposed M Local then they could contact Morrisons and a risk assessment in relation to security would be undertaken.

            The Chairman requested that the Applicant speak to the Morrisons in Princes Park. He accepted that it was not as close to residences as the proposed premises, but it had problems with young people congregating in the car park. The surrounding area had socio economic similarities with the area around the new premises.

In summing up, the Applicant reminded the Panel that the application needed to be determined in line with the law. Representations had been received from Kent Police and as a result the hours or opening and sale of alcohol had been reduced together with additional conditions being added to the premises licence. The Applicant had heard nothing further during the hearing that would require a further restriction of hours. She had considered the representation from Ward Councillors but felt that they were mainly speculative and were not supported by evidence. The Applicant quoted the Daniel Thwaites plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates’ Courtcase which resulted in it being stated that applications needed to be decided on actual evidence and not inappropriate speculation. Morrisons successfully managed over 600 stores countrywide with many of them being in close proximity to residential areas. No reviews had been requested and anybody could apply for a review should they be unhappy with the new premises.

Decision:

The Panel advised that in coming to their decision they had noted the Applicant’s commitment to staff training and to the use of till prompts to enforce protection against underage sales. They also noted the concerns set out by the Ward councillors but could not given their representation much weight due to the lack of formal evidence provided.

The Panel’s decision was to grant the application for a new licence in respect of Morrisons M Local, Churchill Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME5 0DE as follows:

In addition to the Mandatory Conditions, the Panel attached the following conditions as suggested by Kent Police:

1.                  The CCTV system within the building will incorporate cameras covering all points of public access and egress, the primary areas within the store where alcohol is displayed and the primary areas where the sale of alcohol takes place. The system will be capable of providing an image that is regarded by Kent Police as identification standard.

2.                  A person who is trained to retrieve data from the CCTV system shall be available on the premises whilst it is open to the public. Data will be provided to a police officer or a police licensing officer upon demand giving due regard for the provisions of any Data Protection legislation. The data shall be provided in a format that is capable of being viewed on domestic audio visual or computer equipment.

3.                  All persons who work at the premises in a paid or unpaid capacity and undertake Licensable Activity as detailed within this authorisation shall receive training in relation to that Licensable activity.

4.                  Individual Training records must be maintained that detail the nature of the training, the date of the training and the date of any refresher training.

5.                  All checkout operators will operate a refusal log.

In addition, the Panel attached the following good practice measure as contained in Medway Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy as follows:

Condition PN18

(a)            Proceudres should be in place for the prompt collection of street litter generated by the premises for example flyers, cigarette butts or food wrappers.

(b)            Regular patrols of the area outside the premises should be undertaken by staff to clear any litter attributable to the premises.

The Panel did not consider PN18 (c) to be appropriate to this application.