Agenda item

This application was due to be considered on Tuesday, 21 December 2021. The meeting commenced and was adjourned to a later date to enable the Applicant’s agent to attend.

The applicant has applied for a new Premises Licence in respect of Famous Pizza, 44a Luton Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 5AB.

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

Representations have been received from the Police, Public Health and a local Community Group Big Local.  No agreements have been reached.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer advised that the applicant had applied for the sale of alcohol between the hours of 07:00 – 23:00. 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 advised the Panel that the premises fell within a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area and that when the CIP was applied, and 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.

In accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, the Licensing Officer had been in discussions with Planning and confirmed that the planning permission for the premises allowed hot food takeaway, Monday to Saturday from 08:00 to 23:00 and Sunday or National Holidays from 10:00 to 22:00.

She advised that the matter had been put to the Licensing Hearing Panel because the Council had received representations from the Police, Public Health, and a Local Community Group and no agreements had been reached. The objections raised were relevant representations and related to all four of the licensing objectives.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Manchanda noted the requirements of the CIP but questioned whether Famous Pizza would add to the issues that existed in the area. Referring to the high density of licenced premises, he stated that the premises would only represent a half of 1% increase. Mr Manchanda stressed that the application was solely for the home delivery of alcohol with food and that it was therefore no different from delivery services such as Deliveroo, Just Eat or Uber Eats, who were not monitored. He therefore considered there to be exceptional circumstances in that there was a need to ensure local businesses were not disadvantaged. Mr Manchanda said that home delivery services had grown rapidly during the pandemic and that he should be permitted to order a pizza and beer for delivery from a local company.

In response to a question from Kent Police regarding the steps that the business would take to prevent its activities from adding to the issues that already existed in the local area, Mr Manchanda stressed that no alcohol would be displayed at the premises or sold over the counter. When making home deliveries, Challenge 25 would be applied, and all deliveries would be monitored and registered to ensure the four licensing objectives were met.

Mrs Murray, Public Health, questioned Mr Manchanda on his view that this application was exceptional, highlighting that the CIP expected all licenced premises to be well run. Mr Manchanda responded that a home delivery service would help the business to survive in the face of competition from delivery services from outside the CIP area. He added that the CIP did not take account of the growth in the home delivery sector. Referring to the link between alcohol and the high incidences of domestic abuse in this area, Mrs Murray asked how the premises would ensure that it was not adding to this problem. Mr Manchanda repeated that there would only be a very small increase in the number of licenced premises in the area should the licence be granted. If there were any issues with a home delivery, the premises would not deliver to that address in the future.

Mr Perez expressed concern that the application did not specify the types of alcohol that would be on offer and Mr Manchanda responded that they would be happy for a condition to be placed on the licence restricting the alcoholic items on sale.

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Manchanda said that the hours of operation differed from the planning permission because staff would be at the premises from 07:00. However, no deliveries would be made until 08:00. This service would only represent a small part of the business, which was new and needed to develop. If any customer requested alcohol over the counter, it would be made clear to them that this was a delivery service only.

The Chairman invited the objectors to present their objections. PC Smuts outlined the reasons for the representations from Kent Police, as set out in the agenda report. He referred to the location of the premises within the Luton and Chatham CIP and the link between the consumption of alcohol and crime, including domestic violence. Kent Police were concerned that the availability of alcohol by delivery would exacerbate violent crimes. PC Smuts recognised the steps that the applicant proposed to take, as outlined in the application. However, he was of the view that it had not demonstrated how the licensable activities applied for would not negatively impact the licensing objectives, as required by Policy 17 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy; neither had the application demonstrated any exceptional circumstances.

Mrs Murray outlined the objections from Public Health, reiterating the high levels of alcohol related crime and public nuisance within this CIP area. She noted that Members had reviewed the CIP in 2021, considering evidence submitted by the Police and Public Health, and that as a result it had been amended. Mrs Murray highlighted the extensive evidence linking alcohol consumption with domestic abuse. She noted that there was already a high number of licensed premises in the area and also referred to the extensive littering.

Mr Perez referenced Policy 17 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and expressed concern about the lack of an explanation in the application of how these premises would not adversely affect the four licensing objectives.

Mr Manchanda questioned the objectors and was advised that test purchases of delivery companies was a matter for Trading Standards. He was further advised that the review of the CIP had not included deliveries. Mr Manchanda questioned the definition of exceptional circumstance and suggested that a condition might be attached to the licence restricting the delivery of alcohol to wine.

Summing Up, Mr Manchanda expressed the view that the application met all the requirements and would not adversely affect the licensing objectives or add to the issues being experienced in the CIP area. The offer of a delivery service that included alcohol was necessary to expand the business and would only result in a small increase in the number of licensed premises amounting to less than half of 1%.

PC Smuts confirmed that Kent Police objected to the current application and Mrs Murray referred to the rebuttable presumption of refusal in all but exceptional circumstances, as outlined in Policy 17, noting that well run premises did not constitute exceptional circumstances. She highlighted that the application must be considered and determined under current legislation and policy and the fact that alcohol could be delivered to homes, for example from supermarkets, did not mean that this application should be granted. Mr Perez stressed that he wanted local businesses to do well in this community, but the application had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, but had instead sought a start time of 07:00.

Mr Manchanda requested that consideration be given to granting a temporary licence.

The Chairman asked all parties to leave the room whilst the Panel considered its decision.

Decision:

1. The Chairman confirmed that the Panel was not permitted to grant a temporary premises licence as requested during the hearing.

2. The Panel considered all the written evidence before it and had listened carefully to the oral evidence presented at the meeting and unanimously decided to refuse the application for a premises licence for Famous Pizza, 44a Luton Road, Chatham, Kent, ME4 5AB.

3. The Panel empathised with the applicant’s position but concluded that, in accordance with Policies 10 and 17 of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, it could not grant a premises licence as the premises were located in a Cumulative Impact Policy area and the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances.