Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of Medway Food Centre, 43-45 Luton High Street, Chatham, ME5 7LP. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

Representations have been received from members of the public, the Police, Public Health, a local charity Big Local and Ward Councillors, together with a petition. No agreements have been reached.

Discussion:

The Chairman asked the Licensing Officer to outline the matter before the Panel. The Licensing Officer stated that an application for a new premises licence had been received in respect of the Medway Food Centre, 43-45 Luton High Street, Chatham, ME5 7LP.

The application was for the supply of alcohol (off the premises) from Monday to Sunday 09:00 – 20:00. The application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required period.

This matter had been put to the Licensing Hearing Panel because the Council had received representations from the Police, Public Health, Ward Councillors, a local charity, members of the public, together with a petition. No agreement had been reached.

The following documents were included in the main agenda pack: -

• Appendix A - pages 11 to 26, The application.
• Appendix B – page 27, Location Plan
• Appendix C - pages 29 to 49, Representations

Supplementary agenda no 1 included a witness statement and photographs submitted by the Police to support their representation.

Supplementary agenda no 2 included additional information submitted by the applicant to support the application.

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

The Chairman invited the applicant’s representative to present the application for a premises licence. Mr Hutchins referred to the CIP and questioned whether the data within it could still be relied upon as it was mostly four years old and the CIP had not yet been reviewed.

Mr Hutchins advised that the applicant owned the freehold to the premises which was a one stop shop for groceries.  He referred to the petition in support of the application which had attracted 176 signatures in 5 days and a further 35 over the last weekend. He considered that the application went over and above the required standard and that the premises would be a benchmark of a gold standard for other licenced premises to follow. Referring to concerns that the premises would attract anti-social behaviour, he said that the supply of alcohol would only be between the hours of 9.00am and 8.00pm which was less than other premises in the area. Only 5% of the shelving would be used to display alcohol which would be ancillary to general grocery sales and the sale of alcohol would not be promoted.

Referring to the list of possible conditions contained within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, Mr Hutchins listed those that the applicant would be willing to accept. These were CD6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 34, 40, 51, PN1, 22, 38, 40, 45, CH4, 9, 10, 11, CD41 and 42. In addition, the applicant would be willing to consider any other conditions that the Panel might be mindful to impose.

In response to questions from those objecting to the application, Mr Hutchins clarified those units on the shop floor plan that would be used for the storage of alcohol. These would not include the chiller cabinets but would include the shelving behind the counter where higher strength items would be stored.  At present the store was trading between the hours of 8:00am and 9:00pm but would not be selling alcohol beyond 8:00pm.

Asked about the proposed condition that alcohol would only be sold with grocery items, Mr Hutchins explained that the minimum grocery spend in this regard would be set at £5 and would exclude cigarettes. On the issue of littering beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises, Mr Hutchins considered that this was a matter for the Council to enforce. The applicant was willing to play his part by keeping his neighbourhood clean.

Mr Hutchins confirmed that the petition signatures were collected from customers in the shop over a 5-day period.

Next the Panel asked a number of questions on the application. Mr Akpinar was unable to identify the four licensing objectives. He advised that the most popular items in his shop were bread, vegetables and soft drinks. Mr Hutchins confirmed that it was currently proposed that a minimum of two members of staff be on duty between 6.00pm and 8.00pm and that the applicant would be happy reconsider this if the Panel had any concerns. He outlined the measures that would be put in place to protect staff from customers who might be aggrieved that they could not purchase alcohol outside of licensed hours. This included locking items away and providing staff training, including attendance on a recognised certified course.

The Chairman invited those present who had submitted representations against the application to speak. PC Cossar outlined the issues of street drinking, youth related anti-social behaviour and crime and disorder that existed in this densely populated area. A number of alcohol dependent people lived in the area and the increased availability of alcohol would have a detrimental impact and exacerbate the problems that already existed. There was a school in the area and children had witnessed anti-social behaviour, obscene language, urinating and littering. In the past year a multi-agency approach had been taken to tackle these issues.

PC Cossar noted that a similar application had been made in December 2018 when the Panel had refused the application because the applicant had not read and understood the CIP and had not demonstrated that the premises would not have an impact on the area and the licensing objectives.

PC Cossar concluded that Kent Police did not consider that the application sufficiently demonstrated how the Licensing Objectives would be promoted. 

On behalf of Medway’s Director of Public Health, Barbara Murray stated that the premises were located within a hot spot for alcohol related nuisance. She had recently observed litter, broken glass and evidence of public urination. Residents had informed her that street drinking had continued during the recent period of lockdown.

Barbara Murray said that CIP evidence included alcohol related domestic violence which remained an issue of concern. She clarified that the CIP had come into operation on 1 May 2018 so would not be due for review until May 2021.

Councillor Curry, Ward Councillor, acknowledged that businesses such as the Medway Food Centre were valued by the local community, many of whom did not have cars to travel to larger supermarkets. However, it was within an area of high depravation and the CIP should apply. The cumulative impact of further licenced premises would add to issues such as anti-social behaviour, physical and mental health issues and substance misuse. The application went against the multi- agency work that was ongoing to bring about changes to the area.

There being no questions from the applicant’s representative, PC Hill responded to a question from the Panel on enforcement in the Luton area. He said that the Police would investigate any incidents of concern referred to them following compliance checks by the Council’s Licensing Team. A stepped approach was followed and the Police were not currently seeking a review of the licence of any premises in the area.

Summing up, Mr Hutchins said that the conditions proposed within the application would continue and enhance the multi-agency work. If approved, the licence would create a much higher benchmark standard for other business to follow. Referring to paragraph 2.8 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, Mr Hutchins said that the business would support the aim of creating a vibrant, safe and welcoming early evening and night-time economy and would also support the Council’s regeneration goals. Residents wanted a mix of groceries which included alcohol. Conditions would ensure that the sale of alcohol was ancillary to grocery sales. They would also ensure that the business supported the community without adding to the alcohol related harms, as stated at paragraph 5.43 of the Statement of Licensing Policy. The application proposed licensed hours that were less than referred to in the Statement of Licensing Policy and would not add to the cumulative impact of alcohol. Mr Hutchins said that he believed the CIP to be a contentious issue and asked the Panel to consider the application on its own merits.

PC Hill summed up by re-iterating that the availability of alcohol in the Luton Road area was causing problems and that these premises would have a significant impact if the licence was granted. A number of local residents had submitted their concerns in writing. He acknowledged that the applicant had suggested a number of conditions to address the Licensing Objectives but considered that the £5 minimum spend on groceries was low and would be difficult to enforce.  PC Hill concluded that the application did not represent exceptional circumstances and that the rebuttable presumption of refusal should apply.

Barbara Murray said that the proposed conditions within the application were similar to those included in applications for premises across Medway and that the application was not, therefore, exceptional. Many of the issues identified in the CIP occurred during the day when the premises were open. If the application was approved, it would add to these issues.

The Panel resolved to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making and the Chairman advised both parties to the hearing that the Panel’s decision would be sent to them within 5 working days.

Decision:

1.      The Panel considered all the written evidence before it and had listened carefully to all the oral evidence presented by the applicant and his representative, the representatives of Kent Police and Public Health and Cllr Curry and unanimously decided to refuse the application for a new premises licence for the Medway Food Centre, 43-45 Luton High Street, Chatham, ME5 7LP.

2.       The Panel was satisfied that the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) applied for this application; that the applicant’s proposed conditions did not demonstrate  exceptional circumstances that outweighed the rebuttable presumption of refusal of the application; and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the premises would not adversely affect the Licensing Objectives.