Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of JAJ Your Local Choice 55 Ordnance Street Chatham ME4 6SJ. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act. Representations have been received from the Police, Public Health, Licensing Enforcement, a Ward Councillor, a member of the public, a local business and a school and no agreements have been reached.

Discussion:

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

The Licensing Officer stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application for a new premises licence for the supply of alcohol off the premises between 0600 and 2300 hours, Monday to Sunday, in respect of JAJ Your Local Choice, 55 Ordnance Street, Chatham, ME4 6SJ.  She confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required timescale.

The Licensing Officer stated that the premises were located within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area.  Where the policy applied, and there were relevant reputations, there was a rebuttable presumption of refusal by the Licensing Authority in all but exceptional circumstances, unless the applicant could demonstrate that the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives.

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

•           Appendix A – The application for a new premises licence.

•           Appendix B – Location plan.

•           Appendix C – Representations received from the Police, Public health, Licensing Enforcement, a Ward Councillor, a member of the public, a local business and a school.

The Chairman invited the applicant to present the application for a premises licence. 

Mr Gibson stated that the premises were located at the bottom end of the Chatham CIP. The aim of the application was to provide a ‘one stop shop’ for customers so that customer spend was increased. It was not expected that there would be increased footfall and he questioned whether people would come from further away just to visit these premises when there were three other premises nearby.

Mr Gibson assured the Panel that the applicant took the fact that the premises were in a CIP area very seriously and explained why prior negotiation with those who had made representations had not been possible. On behalf of the applicant he offered the following amendments to the application and conditions which he proposed be attached to the licence.

1.    In view of street drinking in the area, the commencement hour for the sale of alcohol (off the premises) was put back from 0600 hours to 0900 hours. This would delay the sale of alcohol until after the school day had commenced.

2.    No beers, lagers or ciders above 5.5% ABV would be sold. It was envisaged that this would deter street drinking as other premises in the area sold higher strength products.

3.    No single cans would be sold which would deter low income drinkers and youths.

4.    Two CCTV cameras would be sited externally to cover the road on both sides of the premises.

5.    The counter would be extended to the far wall of the premises and all alcohol would be displayed behind the counter. This would deter theft and staff would be able to ascertain if customers were under the influence of alcohol when they asked for products. In such circumstances customers would be refused.

6.    Stock would be marked so that items purchased from the premises could subsequently be identified.

7.    No fewer than two staff would be serving at all times. 

Mr Gibson said that these measures, together with the other steps stated in the application to promote the four licensing objectives, would ensure that the business had full control.

In response to questioning by the objectors, the applicant described his relevant experience of working in licenced premises. Asked if the business was not yet open because it would be relying on alcohol sales, he explained that he was in the process of buying the business and this process would continue, and the premises would open, even if the current application was not successful. The applicant confirmed that he had met the current owner a couple of times. He stated that he had not read the CIP. 

In response to questioning by Panel members, Mr Gibson explained that he had read the CIP and had taken the applicants through it, explaining to them what it would mean for their potential licence.  He stressed that staff were well trained and experienced retailers. The applicant explained that he would start a conversation with customers wishing to buy alcohol so that those who were under the influence of alcohol could be refused. Their description would be recorded so that staff would be aware, should they return. Asked what the four licensing objectives were, the applicant was unable to fully respond. 

Next, the Chairman invited those who had submitted representations against the application to state their objections. PC Cosser referred to the history of the premises and stated that they had been closed for some time following a refused application by the current owner. She said that the CIP was well supported and expected applicants to undertake their own research before submitting applications. However, the applicant had not made prior contact with the Police. The application made no reference to the CIP or Statement of Licensing Policy and the applicant had not demonstrated that he knew the issues in the area where the premises were located. She concluded that, if the application was granted, it would have a negative impact on the area.

Mr Gibson asked whether the Police had taken into account the amendment and proposed conditions offered at the meeting as the applicant had sought to address objector’s concerns. PC Cosser responded that these appeared to be an afterthought and that the onus was on the applicant to do research before submitting the application.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer referred to the CIP for Chatham High Street and referred the Panel to paragraphs 12 and 13. These stated that the kind of application which would be encouraged were applications for family friendly venues, such as restaurants, community venues and other leisure businesses where the sale of alcohol is ancillary to the main activity.

The Public Health Project Officer presented the representations of the Director of Public Health, as set out in the agenda pack. She stated that the area had been designated as a CIP because of evidence provided by Public Health, the Police, Community Safety and members of the community. She outlined the issues and problems that were being experienced in the area due to alcohol misuse, as identified by members of the community. The Public Health Project Officer reported that she had twice walked round the area recently and had observed that the problems were still ongoing. Many of the discarded cans and bottles that she had seen were for products below 5.5% ABV. She concluded that another premises in the area would add to these problems.  

There being no further questions, the Chairman invited the parties to the hearing to sum up. Mr Gibson reiterated that he had taken the applicants through the CIP and the conditions and amendments offered would make the premises alcohol unfriendly and ensure that it was not alcohol led. As it was located in an area where people had low levels of disposable income, there would not be an increase in spend on alcohol, but rather it would be spread amongst more premises. Many respectable people lived in the area and the premises would increase the offer available to them.

For Kent Police, PC Chris Hill acknowledged that the additional conditions and amendments made the application better. However, there remained the concern that, as stated in the guidance, research should have been carried out as part of the application process. The Police were still of the view that the premises would be dependent on alcohol sales. A local School had objected to the application and had confirmed to Kent Police that the applicants had not contacted them. Although the sale of alcohol would not start until 9:00am, it would be on sale when the school day finished.

The Public Health Project Officer referred to Policies 10 and 17 and Appendix 4 of the Statement of Licensing Policy and said that Policy 17 stated it was the Authority’s policy to refuse applications for the sale of alcohol for premises licences which fell within the Cumulative Impact Policy areas, dependent on the specific policies in these areas. She referred to paragraph 6.16 which stated that, in considering whether a particular case is exceptional, the Authority would not consider the case as exceptional, where premises would be well managed and run, as all licensed premises should meet this standard.

All parties to the hearing left the room during the Panel’s deliberations and returned before the Chairman announced the Panel’s decision.

Decision:

The Panel had considered all the written evidence before it and had listened carefully to all the evidence presented by the Council’s Licensing Authority, Public Health, Police, the applicant and his representative, and unanimously reached the decision to refuse the application for a premises licence for the following reasons:

(a)      The applicant had not read and therefore understood the CIP, neither could he recount the four licensing objectives.

(b)     The applicant had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the premises would not have an impact on the area and the licensing objectives.