Agenda item

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of 148 High Street Rochester Kent ME1 1ER.

All responsible authorities have been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

Representations have been received from Planning, Police, Public Health, Private Hospital, a Councillor, a Member of Parliament and members of the public.

Discussion:

The Chairman explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda, the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

The Licensing Officer stated that, in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Council had received an application from owner of Chicken Hut and Peri Peri for a new Premises Licence in respect of 148 High Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1ER.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices had been displayed at the premises for the required timescales. She added that all responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act.

The application had been referred to the Licensing Hearing Panel for determination because the Council had received relevant representations relating to the licensing objectives from Planning, the Police, Public Health, a Private Hospital, a Councillor, a Member of Parliament and members of the public.

Members noted the operating hours under the current licence and the application requirements, as amended, were as follows:

The Licensing Officer advised that a representation had been received from Sarah Tranter but had been excluded from the agenda due to an administrative error.

In response to the Chairman’s invitation, Leonard Appleby, the Applicant’s agent explained that the application was made out of economic reason. In order for the business to continue viably, the application for extended trading hours especially during weekends would enable the business to meet the rising costs of fuel, rent and raw materials. Mr Appleby said that the Applicant, being aware of the nuisance, security and littering issues in weekends and late hours, was prepared to enhance the security in the immediate surrounding of the premises and to do regular patrol and a clear up before the closing hours.

The Chairman invited the objectors to question the applicant and his representative.

Security: Questions were raised by PC Hill about the details of enhancing security inside and outside the premises and how the additional costs so incurred would help the business to stay economically viable. Mr Appleby explained that given the objections received, the matter had not been given a full review to cover the security of the High Street. So far, the Applicant’s primary concern was the security of the door entrance to the premises which would disallow street access by staff surveillance from 12 midnight onward.  This was related to the security inside the premises preventing nuisance people coming into the shop in late hours. As this security measure would be stepped up only on late nights and Saturdays, the additional cost was expected to be limited. 

Risk Assessment: Barbara Murray from Public Health expressed concern about the absence of risk assessment in the application as it was an important part of the Licensing Policy. Mr Appleby told the Panel that certain items only came to light following the submission of application. In reply to a query about the most important area that the Applicant considered he needed to address under the Rochester Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP), Mr Appleby advised that while the Applicant did not fully understand the CIP, he found it necessary to address issues relating to the current licence such as public order and littering. 

Licensing objectives: In reply to Councillor Carr’s query, Mr Appleby said that the Applicant had little knowledge of the four licensing objectives.

Licensed hours: On the number of occasions in the past 6 months that the Premises had operated beyond the licensed hours, Mr Appleby advised that there were about 10 times, during which the shop had closed the door to new customers without serving any food but those inside refused to leave the premises until 1:30 am.  Councillor Tranter however pointed out that as he observed, food had been served running up to 1:30 am.

Littering: As regards measures taken by the Applicant since the application to deal with the problem of littering along the High Street as Sarah Tranter had observed that masses of rubbish from Chicken Hut were found lying along the High Street at two recent mornings around 6:30 am, Mr Appleby said that litters in the shop and the immediate surroundings were cleared after the shop was closed. The Applicant added that he did not see any littering along the High Street when he opened the shop in the mornings during the past six months.

Revenue: On steps taken to generate more revenue under the current operating hours, Mr Appleby advised that in addition to reducing staff number, usual advertising through local press and distribution of leaflets were put in place but the effect was not desirable.  Highlighting the collaborative business community in Rochester, Mr Shane Waterman encouraged the Applicant to consider involving himself in related organisations such as Rochester City Centre Forum on ways to promote business during current operating hours. He advised that the proposed measures to be taken during the extended hours might push up the hourly cost and work against profit-making. 

Next, the Chairman invited the objectors to present their representations against the application.

PC Pickett referred to paragraph 3.3 of the Medway’s Statement of Licensing Policy, Licensing Act 2003 which read:

“Experience has shown that the quality of the majority of operating schedules submitted with applications is poor, often with little, or no, detail about the area in which the premises will operate, addressing few, if any, relevant problems or issues relating to licensable activities or how applicants intend to promote the four licensing objectives, other than in general and generic ways.”

He pointed out that the current case was a perfect example. Apart from a lack of understanding of the four licensing objectives by the Applicant, the application was poorly written, and no research was carried out before the application nor prior to this hearing. For example, under the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, it was mentioned that staff would be directed to be polite and respectful yet without advising what staff training and support would be provided to handle confrontation. On public safety, it failed to take out proper insurance against food contamination, and trip or slip hazards.

PC Pickett then gave an account on the crime and CAD incidents from 24 July to 26 October 2021 which was issued under the Supplementary Agenda No. 1 on 29 October 2021.  In general, the number of crime and CAD incidents was highest in 03:01 – 04:00. He said that crowd dispersal before this hour was essential to maintain public order.

Noting the licensed hours of some takeaway establishments in the vicinity ended at around 2 am, PC Pickett stressed the need to take heed of the licensed hours stated in paragraph 5.63 of the Medway’s Statement of Licensing Policy, which read:

“Generally late-night fast food premises will be expected to be closed at: Midnight Sunday to Thursday 0200 hours Friday and Saturday and the Authority will expect the risk assessment and/or operating schedule to include proposed specific measures to promote the four licensing objectives and reference Policy 7. If they are not, it is likely extended hours will be refused or imposed.”

Echoing similar concern on the need to follow guided hours, Thomas Stubbs, Development Management, Planning highlighted that the planning permission hours were from 09:00 to 23:00 for Sundays to Thursdays (inclusive) and public holidays; and between 09:00 and 00:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. He recalled that an application and subsequent appeal to extend beyond this permissible range in 2017 were rejected due to the detrimental impact on local residents. He stressed the need for the Authority to enforce the licence condition that licensees must not operate beyond the licensed hours. 

 Barbara Murray, Public Health Project Officer also referred to paragraph 17.4 of Medway’s Statement of Licensing Policy, which read:

“Where a terminal hour has been set for the use of premises for commercial purposes under planning legislation, the Authority, when its discretion is engaged on receipt of representations, will consider imposing the same terminal hour under licensing legislation, unless there are exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure a proper integration between the two regimes.”

She said that according to the statutory guidance, licensing committees and officers should consider discussion with their planning counterparts prior to determination with the aim of agreeing mutually acceptable operating hours.

The Chairman gave all parties the opportunity to sum up. PC Hill reiterated his concern that, should the application be approved, it would result in an increase in crime and disorder and also issues associated with the dispersal of people in leaving venues in the area.

Councillor Tranter stated his view that one of the cumulative impacts would be other food establishments might follow suit and request to extend trading hours to operate late.  On the licensing objective of protection of children from harm, Councillor Tranter noticed that minors liked to gather in Rochester streets during late nights, with some consuming alcohol. Hence, extension of the Chicken Hut’s trading hours might become a temptation and encourage youngsters gathering. Having been inspired by Waterman’s suggestion, Councillor Tranter also offered to give support to the Applicant in his capacity as the Ward Councillor by proactively helping to advertise the business under the current licence. 

In terms of public health, Barbara Murray summarised that the shop under discussion was situated on the High Street in Rochester, which had a busy evening and night-time economy. While this area was a commercial centre with shops and restaurants, Rochester High Street also has many public houses and residents. There was strong evidence of high and unacceptable levels of crime/public disorder and public nuisance in the immediate and surrounding area, which the Authority had identified needed addressing. She said that this application neither acknowledged nor addressed the issues this area had with crime, disorder, and public nuisance. It also did not address the possible increase in behavioural and situational noise and nuisance that might arise due to the increase in trading hours. The mitigation offered in the operating schedule appeared generic and would do little to address the serious concerns the Authority had in this area.

The Chairman asked all parties to stay in the meeting area whilst the Panel considered its decision at another room.

Decision:

The Panel, having read the objections submitted against the application and listened to some objectors’ views, and questioned the Applicant in relation to these, was not satisfied and had no confidence that the Applicant could manage the premises in the extended hours according to the four licensing objectives which the Applicant had not been able to identify. The Panel expressed concern about the lack of detail in the application regarding the promotion of the licensing objectives and, having considered all the information before it, the Panel refused to grant a new Premises Licence in respect of 148 High Street, Rochester, Kent ME1 1ER. The Chairman recommended the Applicant to take the advice and receive the support kindly offered by Councillor Tranter and Mr Waterman.