Agenda item

In accordance with Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises licence in respect of City Minimart, 3 Cazeneuve Street, Rochester.

The Chairman asked those present to introduce themselves and explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined in the agenda.

The Principal Licensing and Enforcement Officer stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from Kent Police, as a responsible authority, for a review of the existing premises licence in respect of City Minimart, 3 Cazeneuve Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1XU.

All responsible authorities had been consulted and representations supporting the review had been received from Public Health and the local Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator.  No further representations supporting the review had been received from members of the public or other responsible authorities.  Representations objecting to the application for review had been received from members of the public.  

The following documents were included in the agenda report for the Panel’s consideration:

·         Appendix A – Pages 47 to 50: Copy of current premises licence

·         Appendix B – Page 51: Plan showing the location of the premises

·         Appendix C – Page 53 to 59: Copy of the Review Application

·         Appendix D – Pages 61 to 86: Copies of representations

In addition to the above there were three Supplementary Agendas, which set out the following information:

·         Supplementary Agenda 1: Additional information from Kent Police in support of their application for review and an additional representation from a member of the public opposing the application for review.

·         Supplementary Agenda 2: Additional information from Licensing Matters, representing the Licence Holder

·         Supplementary Agenda 3: Additional information from the Ward Councillor, supporting the application for review of the existing premises licence.

The Chairman invited the representative from Kent Police to present the application for a review of the premises licence.  She explained that the premises had failed two test purchases conducted by Trading Standards in 2016, where on both occasions alcohol was sold to a 14 year old.  Trading Standards had submitted a review on this basis but had withdrawn the review after agreeing some actions with the Licence Holder.  The representative from Kent Police also explained that the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) in the area had reported problems relating to street drinkers and the intimidation experienced by local residents and businesses.  The PCSO had also been made aware of claims that the store was selling alcohol outside of its licensable hours.  She then reported on two visits to the premises in September 2016.  On the first occasion, the staff member explained he was working alone in the shop and that the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and the Premises Licence Holder were out of the country.  The staff member confirmed he did not have a Personal Licence and eventually another male arrived at the shop who did hold a Personal Licence but denied having any responsibility for the store. 

The representative from Kent Police added that on the second visit they met with the Licence Holder and raised concerns with him in relation to the street drinkers issue and ways in which the store could prevent selling to street drinkers.  She explained that the Licence Holder had confirmed he did not plan to stop selling high strength alcohol as it was one of the only premises in the area to do so and sales had increased.  It was then reported that an hour after this visit the representative from Kent Police had, with a colleague, witnessed a proxy purchase take place for a known street drinker who waited outside in view of the shop.  In the review submission the Police had expressed their lack of confidence in the management of the premises and of the proposed DPS.  She added that she had since visited the store (the previous day to this hearing) and confirmed that till prompts relating to ID requirements were in place and the staff member in the store did hold a Personal Licence.  The representatives from Kent Police then circulated some ‘hotspot’ maps which showed levels of anti-social behaviour, crime and begging within Rochester, demonstrating the areas in Rochester where activity of this nature was high. 

Finally, the representative from Kent Police then confirmed the conditions that they were suggesting should be added to the premises licence, which were set out at page 57 of the agenda and as follows:

·         Removal of DPS

·         No beer, lager or cider above 5.5% to be sold

·         No single can/bottle sales of beer, lager or cider will be made.  All sales of beer, lager or cider to be a minimum of 4 cans/bottles

·         A clear glazing policy on the premises above 1 metre and below 2 metres so staff have an unobstructed view of the area outside the front of the premises

·         A suspension of the licence for a period of up to three months to allow the premises to reset and give it a chance to continue running in the future without constant attendance and intimidation of the usual clientele.

The representative for the Licence Holder then asked about the involvement the Police had had with the test purchases.  It was confirmed that the only involvement had been in identifying suggested premises for Trading Standards to carry out test purchases.  The Police representative was also asked why the Police had raised this issue under the review request, in the knowledge that Trading Standards were content with the actions taken to address the issue.  In response, she explained that the Police had provided commentary to the previous review request called by Trading Standards and felt that the two occasions where alcohol was sold to a 14 year old was so serious that it should form part of their own review which they decided to bring forward following the withdrawal from Trading Standards.

The representative for the Licence Holder then asked the representative from Kent Police about the incident when she had witnessed the proxy purchase for a street drinker.  The Police representative confirmed that she had been situated on the green area opposite the premises and could see the street drinker and the shop in clear sight.  She confirmed she did not intervene as she was gathering evidence and she had felt that she had given the store support on how to manage this situation during the meeting held earlier that day.

In relation to the condition breaches, such as the lack of a Personal Licence Holder being on the premises, the representative for the Licence Holder asked what consequential negative impact there had been as a result.  The representative from Kent Police confirmed there were none and that Medway Council had followed this up with a compliance visit.

The representative of the Licence Holder than asked for factual evidence of the claims that alcohol had been sold outside of licensable hours.  The representative explained that the evidence was from what local people had been reporting to the PCSO.  The representative for the Licence Holder did not consider this to be factual evidence.

The representative from Public Health then addressed the Panel.  She reported a large display of super strength alcohol being available at the premises and explained the problems in the area relating to street drinkers such as begging, anti-social behaviour, littering and that some of this was directly associated with alcohol sales from the premises, as witnessed by the Police.

The Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator then addressed the Panel.  She explained that she did not want the store to lose its licence but did want the Licence Holder to take some responsibility for the issues relating to street drinkers.  She explained that in relation to the plan of the premises, alcohol took up two walls of the store so was a high ratio of the stock compared with grocery stock.  She reported very recent improvement, for example, she commented on how the new manager had been collecting litter, however, she confirmed that the negative reports collected by responsible authorities were consistent with her own experiences which included lit cigarettes being thrown at her, an attempted break in and begging.

A Panel Member than asked for clarity with regard to the suggested condition relating to single sales.  A representative from the Police explained that street drinkers tended to buy single items of alcohol to reduce the risk of items being lost through confiscation in the Alcohol Control Zone.  He added that street drinkers also tended to prefer purchasing high strength alcohol.  By selling in minimum packs of four cans/bottles, this deterred street drinkers from purchasing items because of the cost and the risk of the alcohol being confiscated.

The representative for the Licence Holder then addressed the Panel.  She explained that in relation to the failed test purchases, Trading Standards had worked closely with the Licence Holder to address issues to prevent further under age sales.  The Licence Holder had since installed an expensive and sophisticated till prompt system in relation to ID requirements which included a camera and microphone to monitor sales.  He had also invested in seven of his staff to obtain Personal Licences and had hired a full time Store Manager who had attended the full DPS training, along with the Licence Holder himself.  Audits, a test purchase and a Police visit that had taken place in February and March of this year had all found the issue to be resolved.

The representative for the Licence Holder then considered the issues relating to condition breaches.  She reiterated there had been no consequential negative impact from these breaches and confirmed that although the Personal Licence Holder that had attended the shop had stated he had no responsibility for the store, he did in fact work there.  She also confirmed that all condition breaches had been resolved.  She considered the condition on the current premises licence, that required a Personal Licence holder to always be on site, onerous for such a small business and explained that of the seven staff that the Licence Holder had obtained Personal Licences for, three had since left.

The representative for the Licence Holder then raised the issues relating to street drinkers and stated that there was only evidence of one specific link to the premises, which was the witnessed proxy purchase.  She explained that it had been the Licence Holder that had sold the alcohol to the proxy purchaser that day and he had not realised that this was for a street drinker who was sitting outside.  She explained how difficult it was to detect proxy purchases and that a legal sale had been made.  She criticised the Police for not intervening to warn the Licence Holder of the proxy purchase and for not giving him an opportunity to familiarise himself with both individuals and learn from the situation.  

In relation to the sale of high strength alcohol, the representative for the Licence Holder explained that this was not only purchased by street drinkers, as there were many others buying the products and by limiting sales to a minimum of four cans/bottles, she felt this would only encourage people, who may want to buy one or two, to drink more.  She considered that retailers should not be forced to not sell high strength alcohol and suggested that the limit of 5.5% ABV was too low a threshold, should the condition be imposed.  In relation to the suggested condition of removing the DPS, she felt this was inappropriate.  The Licence Holder had only been made DPS a month ago, to which the Police had made no objection.  The representative for the Licence Holder requested the Panel to dismiss the review.

A representative from Kent Police then sought clarity about whether the Licence Holder’s brother-in-law, who had made the sales to the under age customer, still worked at the premises.  It was confirmed by the Licence Holder that he did not.

The Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator then raised concern that some of the suggested conditions were not being considered by the Licence Holder.  She referred to a recent incident when teenagers congregated on the green outside the premises arguing about who would go and buy the alcohol from City Minimart and had even approached her neighbour in asking him to do a proxy purchase.  She had approached the Licence Holder on this issue.  She also held the view that the selling of high strength alcohol did attract street drinkers, begging and other associated activity.

The Panel Members clarified with the Licence Holder the management arrangements of the store, given that it was one of three owned by him.  It was confirmed that both the Licence Holder and the Store Manager ran the store on a day to day basis and were present every day.  The two other stores had different DPSs.

A Panel Member also asked for clarification as to whether the Licence Holder had been involved in any of the discussions and meetings with Ward Councillors, PCSOs or others.  It was confirmed this he had not, nor was he aware of the issue of people congregating outside the premises.

In summing up, the representatives from Kent Police explained their desire for this review process to be part of partnership working with the premises to improve circumstances for the local community.  It was reiterated how serious the Police had considered the failed test purchases and the condition breaches and that it was not revocation of the licence that the Police were requesting.  They considered that the conditions they had suggested, as outlined in the report, were reasonable in context of the circumstances that were occurring in the vicinity of the premises in relation to street drinkers and the impact it was having on the local community.  They also considered a suspension should be given in terms of a deterrent in relation to the seriousness of under age sales and to give the premises an opportunity to reset and it was suggested a 14 day suspension may be suitable.

The representative from Public Health then summed up by reiterating the anti-social behaviour in the area was associated with the sale of alcohol from the premises as demonstrated by the community evidence provided via the Neighbourhood Watch, Ward Councillors and PCSOs.  She confirmed that statutory guidance did make reference to promoting the licencing objectives in the interests of the local community and it was considered that the conditions recommended by Kent Police were reasonable given the circumstances and the effect this was having on the community.

The Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator then summed up explaining that she had liaised with the Licence Holder on many occasions in relation to the issues of street drinkers.  She also mentioned that a primary school was located very nearby and that children and families were, therefore, sometimes exposed to public nuisance activity.  She considered the right to sell alcohol should be accompanied with a responsibility for the actions outside the premises and wanted reassurance that the recent improvements would continue, especially with the warmer weather coming when the situation in relation to street drinkers often worsened.

The representative for the Licence Holder then summed up, highlighting the letters of objection to the review, demonstrating the premises as a community asset. She reiterated the interventions taken by the Licence Holder since the failed test purchases, which had satisfied Trading Standards, who had withdrawn their review and explained that the condition breaches had been remedied immediately.  Therefore she did not consider a suspension of any kind to be appropriate and the conditions to be disproportionate given the lack of what she considered to be factual evidence.  She also raised concern that revocation or suspension of the premises licence would cause the business to close.  She confirmed that the Licence Holder would be prepared to work with the authorities on the community issues raised but considered that no action should be taken in respect of the review.

With the exception of the Legal Adviser and the Democratic Services Officer, all present left the room during the Panel’s deliberations, returning to hear the Panel’s decision.

Decision:

The Panel, having considered the evidence presented by the applicant (Kent Police), Public Health and Neighbourhood Watch and the Licence Holder, his representative and objectors to the review, decided to modify the conditions of the premises licence by adding the following: -

1.    No beer, lager or cider above 6.5% ABV will be sold.

2.    No single can/bottle sales of beer, lager or cider will be made.  All sales of beer, lager or cider will be a minimum of 4 cans/bottles.

3.    A ‘clear glazing’ policy shall be kept on the premises above 1 metre and below 2 metres so staff have an unobstructed view of the area outside the front of the premises through the glass looking into the street.  The exception to this shall be the display of notices required by law and any required as a condition of this licence.

The Panel also decided, in recognition of the incidents that had occurred, to suspend the licence for a period of 14 days.