Agenda item

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council has received an application for a new premises licence in respect of Euro Foods, 131 High Street, Chatham. The matter has been referred to the Licensing Hearing Panel because representations have been received from Kent Police and Public Health.

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 for a new premises licence for Euro Foods, 131 High Street, Chatham, Kent ME4 4DH. The application was for the supply of alcohol off the premises.  

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and the application had been referred to the Licensing Hearing Panel for consideration and determination because representation had been received from Kent Police and Public Health in relation to all four of the licensing objectives.  No further representations had been received from members of the public or other responsible authorities.

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

Appendix A – Pages 9 to 19:  Copy of the application as submitted

Appendix B – Pages 21: A copy of the floor plan

Appendix C – Page 23: A copy of a map showing the location of the premises

Appendix D – Page 25 to 39: A copy of representations received from Kent Police and Public Health

The applicant had subsequently submitted additional information which was provided to Panel members and the objector in a supplementary agenda (no. 4).

The Chairman invited the applicant to present the application for a premises licence.  The applicant highlighted to Members that he was proposing measures to promote the four Licensing Objectives, as set out in the application.  He considered the main issue being raised by objectors to be in relation to street drinkers and he felt there was an inability of authorities (Police and the Local Authority) to address this problem.  He considered the main strategy of authorities was to ban shops from selling alcohol.  He also explained that he had been abused, verbally and physically, when promoting the licensing objectives under his previous premises licence when refusing the sale of alcohol to intoxicated customers.

In response to a question from a Kent Police representative about how the applicant intended to stop selling alcohol to street drinkers, the applicant confirmed that he would refuse to sell alcohol to street drinkers.  He explained that he would implement a policy with staff that as soon as a street drinker was identified they would be refused the sale of alcohol and that a refusals register would be maintained.

In response to a question from the Public Health representative about the responsibility of Euro Foods in relation to the gathering of street drinkers outside the store, the applicant stated that although the sale of alcohol was a factor, street drinkers congregated along Chatham High Street anyway and in particular outside Euro Foods because of the benches that were outside the store.  He stated that this still happened now even though he was not selling alcohol.

In response to a further question from the Public Health representative, the applicant confirmed that since the review of his previous premises licence in 2016 he had taken actions such as stopping sales to street drinkers although proxy purchasing (purchases made for someone else on their behalf) was more difficult to determine and mitigate.

A representative from Kent Police then addressed the Panel, explaining that the Police had called for the review of the previous premises licence and had provided evidence, along with Public Health, in relation to the applicant’s failure to uphold and promote the four licencing objectives.  There had been persistent problems in the store’s specific area which related to public nuisance and crime and disorder caused by alcohol sales, directly associated with Euro Foods. It was explained that authorities, in partnership with charities, were trying to support street drinkers with their addiction but it was difficult to engage with individuals who were too intoxicated to be referred for help.  He added that Kent Police had been provided with information that alcohol sales had continued from the back of the store since the Magistrates Court decision on 25 January 2017 to uphold the Licensing Hearing Panel’s decision made on 26 July 2016 to revoke the previous premises licence. 

The representative from Kent Police continued by reporting that the Police, with colleagues, had tried to engage and work with the applicant to address the issues, ahead of the licence review request that took place in 2016, but despite engagement, no changes were made to address the concerns.  Equally they did not consider that this application, for a premises licence for the supply of alcohol off the premises, addressed the issues that had led to the revocation.  For example, Kent Police had previously recommended a number of conditions and actions to the applicant ahead of the review, which could have helped to address the issues, such as not selling alcohol of high ABV, but none of these suggestions were included in this application.  Kent Police had not recommended conditions for this licence as they had no confidence in the applicant to sell alcohol safely or responsibly, therefore the Police recommended refusal of the application for a licence.

In response, the applicant refuted the claim that alcohol sales had continued since the Magistrates Court decision but confirmed that the sale of alcohol had continued in between the two Licensing Hearing Panel on 26 July 2016 and the Magistrates Court decision on 25 January 2017, which was permitted by law.  He also referred the Panel to the additional information supplied in supplementary agenda no. 4, which stated that evidence provided anonymously should not be taken into account as it could not be scrutinised or challenged and it could not be established whether the information was true, accurate or fair.  It also stated that the evidence provided by Public Health had been obtained from visual scrutiny of the premises and was contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and that the evidence should therefore not be accepted. 

The applicant also stated that the Police were not challenging street drinkers about their behaviour.  The representative from Kent Police confirmed that there were Police Officers patrolling the area on a daily basis and that these officers did deal with street drinkers causing public nuisance or committing offences.

The representative from Public Health then addressed the Panel.  She explained that the evidence she had gathered, which was included in the report, had been obtained largely from other businesses within the vicinity of Euro Foods and many (although not all) had wanted to remain anonymous because they were concerned about intimidation.  She added that all the evidence provided, although largely anonymous, was consistent across the accounts given.  She also referred to a history of non engagement of the applicant with the Police and Public Health and confirmed she had no confidence in the applicant to promote the four licensing objectives.  She added that a local charity who supported street drinkers had reported to her that they had overheard clients talking about purchasing alcohol at the back of Euro Foods since the Magistrates Court decision to uphold the revocation of the store’s premises licence.  This was again denied by the applicant.

A Member of the Panel then asked the representative from Kent Police how often they were called to disperse street drinkers from the area.  It was confirmed that figures were not available due to the daily presence of Police Officers in the area.  In addition, those Police Officers had access to the radio system used with businesses in the area which was used to alert them of issues that required their assistance. This activity did not generate a police record of calls.

A Member of the Panel then asked the applicant what action he took to deter street drinkers from gathering outside his store.  The applicant confirmed that if a street drinker congregated outside he would no longer allow them to purchase alcohol.  He added that they tended to congregate outside the store because of the benches that were outside the store and he felt unable to move street drinkers on from using the benches, in the same way the Police could.

A Member then asked the representative from Kent Police about the Alcohol Control Zone which existed in the area.  It was confirmed that alcohol was removed from street drinkers found to be in possession of alcohol in the area.  It was explained that this was the reason why often a suggested condition on a premises licence in a problematic area was to limit the minimum sale of lager, beer and cider to packs of four cans/bottles, given that street drinkers often purchased one can at a time to limit the risk of losing items of alcohol, confiscated from them in the alcohol control zone.

A Member of the Panel then asked the representative from Kent Police about the engagement with the applicant.  It was confirmed that letters were sent and meetings were held around the time of the premises licence review in 2016 to discuss the issues relating to street drinkers and strategies to stop the sale of alcohol to such individuals.  The applicant had agreed to remove certain products from stock but had continued to sell high strength alcohol to vulnerable people and therefore the situation in relation to street drinkers continued. 

A Panel Member also asked how many other outlets there were in the area selling alcohol.  The Public Health representative stated there were approximately 25 within a 1km radius and approximately 17-18 in a 500m radius.

Summing up, the applicant reported to have met with the Police once before the review request was submitted, which was when he agreed to remove some products from stock.  He also explained that he had previously called for Police assistance on numerous occasions but had not found this to be useful so had stopped reporting issues. 

The representative from Kent Police then summed up by stating that they did not consider the applicant had, in this application, addressed any of the issues which had led to the revocation of the previous premises licence.  He added that the information the Police had in relation to the continued alcohol sales from the store since the decision by the Magistrates Court to uphold the revocation of the previous premises licence, along with the history of selling alcohol to at risk people who would then engage in public nuisance and crime and disorder activity, demonstrated the disregard of the applicant towards the four licensing objectives.  This was supported by the representative from Public Health.

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 and objectors’ representatives, decided to refuse the application for a premises licence for the supply of alcohol off the premises at Euro Foods, 131 High street, Chatham, Kent, ME4 4DH.