Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of MA One Stop International Food, 115C High Street, Gillingham, Kent ME7 1BS. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003.

The application is before Members as representations have been received from the Police, Public Health and members of the public. To date no agreement has been reached.

Discussion

The Chairman advised that the process the hearing would follow was set out on page 4 of the agenda pack.

The Licensing Officer stated that an application for a new premises licence in respect of MA One Stop 115C High Street Gillingham, had been received, to include:

Supply of Alcohol (off the premises)

Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 21:00

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

The Licensing Officer advised that the premises fell within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area. Where a CIP was in place and relevant representations had been received, there was a rebuttal presumption of refusal in all but exceptional circumstances unless the applicant could demonstrate that the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that, in accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, discussions with Planning Services had confirmed that the premises had no planning history. They had been unable to confirm class or hours.

The following documents were included in the agenda pack:

Appendix A pages 11 – 31 – Application for new premises licence

Appendix B page 33 - Location plan

Appendix C pages 35 – 50 – Copies of representations received

The Chairman invited the applicant to present the application for a new premises licence. Mr Ali said that he had been a taxi driver 13 years but that Covid-19 had made this unviable and he had needed to find alternative work. There were three other premises in close proximity to 115C High Street that were already selling alcohol, including one that was open 24 hours a day. Mr Ali stated that should his premises be unable to sell alcohol then potential customers would still be able to purchase it from these other premises. It was acknowledged that there had been objections from Kent Police and Public Health, but that other objections received were from persons connected to nearby businesses. Mr Ali also said that he had received threats and had being the victim of anti-social behaviour as a result of his application and that this had been reported to the Police.

In response to questions from Mrs Murray asking Mr Ali how he proposed that the sale of alcohol would not contribute to any of the issues outlined in the licensing policy and what he understood the issues in Gillingham High Street to be, Mr Ali said that there were other premises in close proximity to his. Should MA One Stop International be unable to sell alcohol, people would instead purchase alcohol from these premises. He further stated that the granting of a licence would only affect other existing businesses and that refusal of a licence would not help to address existing problems in the area. Mr Ali would take careful steps to ensure that his premises were not contributing to these problems and he aimed to make his premises an example to other premises of how they should conduct their business.

Mr Ali said that he had provided details in his application in relation to how he would prevent his premises from making existing issues in the area worse. He acknowledged that there were many street drinkers in the Gillingham High Street area and that there were associated problems, such as litter. However, Mr Ali had explained to the Kent Police Licensing Officer that his business would not be relying on alcohol sales as his premises was a supermarket which wanted to be a one stop for the local community to do all their shopping at one location. The premises had employed six people who had previously been unemployed. Mr Ali further stated that he was not looking to compete with other premises in the area on price and that those looking for cheap alcohol would therefore not purchase it from his premises.

PC Hunt asked Mr Ali why he had proposed a condition within his application to provide an SIA security officer at the premises every day from 1pm until closing. Mr Ali said that this was due to alcohol related problems in the area which he did not want his premises to contribute to. The security officer would help to prevent intoxicated persons from entering the premises and prevent sales to under age persons.

In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Ali was not able to state the licensing objectives but said that he could read these from a document if required and advised that English was not his first language. Mr Ali said that he had ensured that he had appropriate staff in place to be able to sell alcohol responsibly.

The Panel asked Mr Ali what the benefits would be of a premises licence being granted and how he could do things better than other businesses. Mr Ali said that the potential issues and how these would be addressed had been outlined in the application and that the aim was for the premises to be a good example to other premises in the area that sold alcohol. He would not sell alcohol to local street drinkers and would also ensure the premises did not sell alcohol to underage customers.

The Chairman invited the Police representatives to state their representations against the application. PC Hunt said that the premises were located in the centre of Gillingham in close proximity to many other retail premises and a range of other facilities. Kent Police and Medway Public Health had identified several areas of concern in their representations, particularly alcohol related harm, disorder and nuisance and street drinking.

PC Hunt had previously been a town centre Police Officer for Gillingham High Street. During this time he had dealt with street drinking and associated issues on an almost daily basis and had seen the negative impact that alcohol could have on town centres. Street drinking and associated crime, disorder and nuisance continued to remain an issue in central Gillingham with there continuing to be seizures of alcohol from people drinking within the High Street Alcohol Control Zone. On 23 November 2020, PC Hunt had attended the High Street area just before lunchtime and had witnessed a group of street drinkers congregating. He said that street drinking was still occurring on a daily basis and that the current town centre Police team were of the opinion that the application for a premises licence should be refused. There were many areas in close proximity to the premises where street drinkers still congregated, with Balmoral Gardens being of particular note as street drinkers were known to congregate on the grass area close to a children’s play area and medical centre. Any sale of alcohol to street drinkers would be considered a failure of a premises to promote the licensing objectives with regards to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

PC Hunt said it was important to note that the premises were located within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and that there was also a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), otherwise known as an Alcohol Control Zone, in place. The Medway Council Statement of Licensing Policy stated that the single largest type of premises within Medway were off licence premises. The policy highlighted problems caused by availability of alcohol for sale at local shops for consumption away from the premises. Street drinking was a problem, with the Policy also acknowledging the hidden harms associated with the availability of cheap alcohol, including unacceptable levels of domestic abuse, health harms, hospital admissions and ambulance call outs where alcohol was deemed to be a contributing factor.

PC Hunt felt that Gillingham Town Centre was already saturated with off license premises. The High Street was 0.4 miles long and already contained 12 off licence premises with there being a further six located in close proximity. The addition of another premises selling alcohol in the area would make it more widely available and likely add to the problems that had already been evidenced by the CIP and identified by the Police and their partners. It was also likely that the granting of the licence for  an additional off licence premises would place greater pressures on already competing businesses. This could result in some of these premises operating irresponsibly in order to gain a competitive advantage. This would have a negative impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

It was noted that the applicant had, within his application, proposed multiple steps and conditions to be added to his operating schedule to promote the licensing objectives and that the existence of the CIP had been acknowledged. It was considered that the proposed conditions would help promote the licensing objectives to an extent. However, the proposed conditions were not considered to be anything more than would be expected from any well-run premises. Kent Police considered that the proposed conditions did not negate the fact that the granting of a premises licence would increase the availability of alcohol in an already saturated market. The business model of the premises appeared to be no different to other supermarkets or off licence premises currently operating within the CIP and it was not considered that there were exceptional circumstances in relation to the application.

PC Hunt had visited the premises on Tuesday 10 November 2020 and had met Mr Ali. He had brought to Mr Ali’s attention that some public facing staff had not been wearing face masks. PC Hunt had also visited the premises on Monday 23 November 2020, during which he had observed that windows at the front of the premises were covered in advertising wrap. The windows were therefore not clear glaze and Mr Ali would therefore be in breach of one of his proposed conditions, should he be granted a licence and commence the sale of alcohol.

Due to the premises being within a CIP there was a rebuttal presumption of refusal of the application by the licensing authority in all but exceptional circumstances, unless the applicant could demonstrate that the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives. Kent Police did not believe that the application had demonstrated exceptional circumstances and were of the opinion that there were no meaningful conditions that could be added to licence that would ensure that the four licensing objectives were fully promoted or that would ensure that the issues already within the CIP would not increase. Kent Police were therefore requesting that the Panel consider rejecting the application for a new premises licence.

The Chairman invited Mrs Murray to state the Public Health representations against the application. Mrs Murray advised that she was attending the Panel on behalf of the Director of Public Health. She confirmed that representations had been made in relation to the licensing objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder and the Prevention of Public Nuisance. The premises were located within the Gillingham High Street CIP area, which covered Gillingham High Street and the surrounding area. The policy had been put in place following acceptance by the licensing authority of evidence submitted to them demonstrating high levels of alcohol related crime, disorder and associated public nuisance in the vicinity of Gillingham High Street.

Mrs Murray advised that the CIP was supported by evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder and nuisance from Kent Police, the Community Safety Unit and Medway’s Public Health department. Public Health was also concerned about less visible issues affecting the area, such as domestic abuse, levels of which were very high. There were significant levels of street drinking in the area of Gillingham High Street and associated issues including litter, public urination and defecation. These problems were current and ongoing.

Between July and October 2020, during visits to the Gillingham High Street area, Mrs Murray had observed a number of incidents of street drinking. Photos of resulting litter had been included in the representation made by Public Health. She had visited the area since submitting the representations and had observed a further three incidents. There was also evidence of public drug use in the area with photos of this having also been included in the representation.

Mrs Murray had spoken to staff at the Balmoral Gardens Medical Centre who had described how they saw daily public drinking in Balmoral Gardens and that street drinkers and drug users were causing a nuisance to the surgery with some parents having stopped their children from using the nearby play area because of the presence of street drinkers. The issues were ongoing and cases of domestic violence were also high in the area.

There was an existing high density of licensed premises in the area, particularly off licence licenses. Mrs Murray advised the Panel that Policy 10 of the Medway Statement of Licensing Policy set out the expectations of the policy when determining applications for off licenses and that Policy 17 outlined the Council Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP). This was supported by Appendix 4, which summarised the evidence supporting the implementation of the CIP. Policy 17 stated that there was an expectation that an application for a premises licence within in CIP area would contain a full explanation of how the premises would not adversely affect the relevant licensing objectives. Mrs Murray said that Mr Ali’s application had not provided an explanation within the operating schedule as to how the sale of alcohol from the premises would not add to existing issues. There was a rebuttal presumption of refusal in all but exceptional circumstances unless the applicant could demonstrate that the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives. It was considered that demonstrating that the premises would be well run and managed did not amount to an exceptional circumstance. The Director of Public Health did not consider that the application fulfilled any of the criteria outlined by Policy 17 of the Medway Statement of Licensing Policy and was therefore requesting that the application be refused.

There being no further questions, the Chairman invited Mr Ali to summarise his case. Mr Ali said that he had taken steps within his application to demonstrate that the premises would not add to existing problems associated with alcohol in the local area and that he had set out how the premises would try to set a good example to others in the area. The premises was called MA One Stop International Foods and was not advertised as an off licence. It was proposed that alcohol would be sold to people doing their weekly shopping and that the premises would not be competing with existing off licences.

Mr Ali had placed stickers on his windows to highlight that the premises was a grocery store. There were no photos of alcohol on display, which was not the case for some other premises in the area. Covering the windows would also prevent people from seeing into the premises, with Mr Ali considering that people looking to only purchase alcohol would not enter. He would implement any conditions determined by the Panel and considered that the granting of the licence would not add to existing problems, where as refusal would result in people still being able to purchase alcohol from a number of other premises in the area.

Summing up for Kent Police, PC Hunt said that it was refreshing to see an application for a new premises licence that had included considered conditions. However, it was considered that no proposed conditions could remove the concern  that the addition of another premises would add to existing issues in the area. There were already 12 licensed premises on Gillingham High Street and six on surrounding roads. Kent Police supported the CIP and did not consider that there were any exceptional circumstances in relation to the application.

Mrs Murray, summing up on behalf of the Medway Director of Public Health, said that the application was not considered to include any exceptional circumstances. The premises would be operating as an off licence and it was not unreasonable to think that the sale of alcohol from premises would contribute to alcohol related crime, disorder and public nuisance in the area that was current and ongoing. Accordingly, the Director of Public Health requested that the application be refused.

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 by Kent Police and Medway Council’s Public Health Department and unanimously decided to refuse the application for a premises licence for MA One Stop International Food, 115C High Street Gillingham, Kent, ME7 1BS.

2.      The Panel refused the application as there was a rebuttal presumption of refusal of the application by the licensing authority in all but exceptional circumstances, due to the premises falling within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area, and having considered the licence application and representations made, the Panel determined that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Panel was also not confident that the applicant was fully aware of the four licensing objectives.