Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of Royal Supermarket, 56 Balmoral Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4PG. All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

Representations have been received from the Police and Public Health. No agreement has 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 Royal Supermarket, 56 Balmoral Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4PG.

The application was for the supply of alcohol (off the premises) from Monday to Sunday 08:00 – 21:00. 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 and Public Health and no agreement had been reached.

The following documents were included in the agenda pack: -

• Appendix A - pages 11 to 35, The application.
• Appendix B – page 37, Location Plan
• Appendix C - pages 38 to 53, Representations

The Licensing Officer stated that the premises fell within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and that, where there were 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. Lisa Weston said that Mr Sebastian acknowledged that his application was deficient and did not fulfil all of the basic requirements. He wanted to have the opportunity to correct this either by withdrawing his application and submitting a more detailed one which addressed the Cumulative Impact Policy or by outlining his suggestions for enhancing the current application at the hearing. After a short adjournment, the applicant decided to proceed with his current application and Ms Weston informed the Panel of Mr Sebastian’s proposals, as follows:

·       A reduction in licensable hours to 1400 hours to 2100 hours.

·       Keeping alcohol products locked in a concealed area so they were not on display.

·       Managing age and identity checks; Mr Sebastian would be on the premises at all times.

·       Employing a SIA registered doorperson during licensable hours.

·       Restricting alcohol sales so that purchases could only be with non-alcoholic items.

Ms Weston suggested that these measures would act as a deterrent to anyone who only wanted to buy cheaper alcoholic items. She added that Mr Sebastian had been a responsible licence holder in the past and he was willing to consider any additional conditions that the Panel wished in impose including granting a temporary licence and reviewing it after a period of time.

Ms Weston concluded by highlighting the length of time that Mr Sebastian had been at the premises and his awareness of the issues in the local area. For example, he had observed people purchasing alcohol elsewhere and bringing it to the area of his shop to consume.

PC Hunt, for Kent Police, questioned Mr Sebastian about his intention to always be at his shop and his reasoning for offering to employ door staff. Mr Sebastian responded that it was his job to be in his shop and that he had three members of staff so there would always be two people on the premises. He confirmed that the door person would be in addition to this. 

PC Hunt questioned why Mr Sebastian had not offered to restrict alcohol sales to lower strength products or refuse to sell single cans. Mr Sebastian acknowledged the problem of street drinking in the area and agreed with the proposal for lower strength alcohol. With regard to Mr Sebastian’s proposal not to sell alcohol without other purchases, PC Hunt asked what the minimum spend would be and if Mr Sebastian would accept the purchase of alcohol with a packet of crisps. Mr Sebastian responded that he was willing to accept any condition that was placed on the licence.

Representing the Director of Public Health, Barbara Murray asked Mr Sebastian what training he would give to his staff around alcohol sales and he responded that he would follow all regulations such as Challenge 25 and keeping a refusals book. He added that he would be willing to send his staff on any training course that may be required.

Mrs Murray asked how Mr Sebastian would ensure that alcohol from his premises would not add to the problems that already existed in the area. Mr Sebastian confirmed that he would advise customers that they could not buy alcohol before 2pm and the premises would close at 9pm so the time when alcohol could be sold would be lowered.

Next, Panel members questioned Mr Sebastian and he confirmed that he had been aware of the CIP and that he was confident that the sales of non-alcoholic items would enable him to cover the cost of a door person. He assured the Panel that he would not discontinue employing door staff. Asked about the benefit that his premises brought to the local community, Mr Sebastian said that his shop was just off the High Street so people passing by were able to buy a range of products.

The Chairman invited PC Hunt to present the representations from Kent Police and he referred to the alcohol related crime and disorder and public nuisance that were associated with street drinking. He recounted his recent visits to Gillingham High Street when he had observed street drinkers. He noted the proximity of Balmoral Gardens, a grassed area with a children’s playground and a Medical Centre. He advised that, in addition to being in a CIP area, the premises were also within a Public Space Protection Order area.

PC Hunt noted that there were already multiple premises selling alcohol in and around Gillingham High Street and suggested that one might be tempted to cut corners to gain a competitive advantage. He referred to the original application which had offered very few steps to promote the Licensing Objectives. Although additional measures had been proposed at the hearing, he did not consider these to be sufficient to satisfy the Licensing Objectives or to amount to exceptional circumstances as required in a CIP area.

PC Hunt concluded that he was concerned by Mr Sebastian’s willingness to accept any conditions to obtain a premises licence.

Next, on behalf of the Director of Public Health, Barbara Murray stressed that the evidence used to justify a CIP in Gillingham High Street went beyond the visible results of street drinking. It included alcohol related domestic violence; assaults requiring attendance at A&E; ambulance call outs and hospital admissions. The issues associated with Gillingham High Street were current and ongoing as demonstrated by the evidence presented in the report which had been collected between July and October this year. Since submitting her representations she had seen three more incidents of street drinking early in the morning and there continued to be evidence of alcohol litter throughout the area. 

Mrs Murray reported that she had spoken to people in the area who were intimidated by street drinkers on a daily basis and complained that their presence prevented children from using the playground.

Responding to questions from Ms Weston, PC Hunt said that he was not aware of similar premises in the area that employed door staff, only Iceland and Aldi. He also confirmed that other premises had much longer opening hours and that some sold ethnic foods like the Royal Supermarket. Asked to clarify why he was concerned by Mr Sebastian’s willingness to accept any conditions, PC Hunt responded that it had been worrying that Mr Sebastian had not included his suggestions as part of his own proposals.

There being no further questions, the Chairman invited all parties to sum up.

On behalf of Mr Sebastian, Ms Weston said that the guidance offered very little on what amounted to exceptional circumstances, only a list of what was not considered exceptional. Mr Sebastian’s understanding of the procedure had been limited and he had not known where to look in the guidance. He had successfully been a premises licence holder in the past and he was willing to take the required steps to improve his application such as reducing the licensable hours so that he could ensure sufficient staffing levels and door staff. Ms Weston added that the premises had many ethnic minority customers as he sold ethic food and his sales were sufficient to cover the cost of a door person. She disputed the view that he was desperate for a licence; he just wished to offer a wider range of goods.

Ms Weston considered that the additional conditions offered represented exceptional circumstances as no other comparable premises employed an SIA registered door person. Mr Sebastian’s willingness to put in place appropriate measures demonstrated his appreciation of the issues that existed in the area his premises were located. These measures would deter street drinkers and attract more responsible alcohol drinkers. Ms Weston concluded by repeating Mr Sebastian’s willingness for a licence to be granted on a temporary basis.

Summing up, PC Hunt said that the proposed additional conditions did not alleviate his concerns and granting a licence would add to the problems experienced in this area. He questioned how a condition requiring the sale of other items with alcohol would work and said that he had not received an explanation why Mr Sebastian thought a door person was required. PC Hunt also questioned the viability of Mr Sebastian’s intention to be at the premises every day.

PC Hunt added that, although Mr Sebastian had received the concerns of Kent Police when he submitted his original application, he had not made contact to discuss these concerns. The additional conditions had only been offered at the hearing. PC Hunt concluded that additional licenced premises in the area would only add to the issues in Gillingham High Street, as outlined in the CIP.

Barbara Murray summed up by emphasising the high levels of alcohol related issues in the area, many of which were not visible. She advised that there was no facility for issuing a temporary licence or for reviewing a licence unless there was a reason to request a review. She considered that a condition requiring non-alcoholic items to be sold with alcohol would be unenforceable and that the presence of a door person would only deter incidents within the premises as the door person would have no remit to respond to issues outside.

Mrs Murray concluded by referring to the rebuttable presumption of refusal of an application unless there were exceptional circumstances. She noted that premises that were well managed and well run were not considered exceptional and was of the view that there was nothing exceptional in Mr Sebastian’s application. 

The Panel resolved to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the Panel’s deliberations and decision making.

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 and the representatives of Kent Police and Public Health and unanimously decided to refuse the application for a new premises licence for the Royal Supermarket, 56 Balmoral Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4PG.

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.