Agenda item

To consider a full variation application for a Premises Licence at Strood Mini Mart, 93 Bryant Road, Strood, ME2 3ES following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had submitted a full variation application for a Premises Licence at Strood Mini Mart, 93 Bryant Road, Strood ME2 3ES.

The Panel was informed that the current premises licence was for the sale by retail of alcohol between 06:00 and 23:00 every day. The application was to vary the current hours for sale by retail of alcohol to 24 hours and to add late night refreshment between 23:00 and 01:00. Between the hours of 01:00 and 05:00 it was proposed the store would be open for outgoing deliveries only, with no public access permitted.

All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from Environmental Protection, Kent Police, Public Health, and 22 members of the public. Since making their representation Kent Police had withdrawn it as the applicant had agreed to recommended opening hours of Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00 and to add various conditions which were set out in supplementary agenda item to Appendix D.

The Chairperson invited the applicant and their representative to speak in support of their application.

The applicants representative explained that there had been some changes made to the hours requested in the application and it was now proposed that the premises would open Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23:00 application and the request for late night refreshments from 23:00 to 01:00 had been withdrawn. The Panel was informed that the intention was to open from 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday and to allow the collection of outgoing deliveries only from 23:00 to 06:00. The concerns regarding public nuisance were acknowledged and the representative explained the number of deliveries collected would be approximately 3 or 4 per night, drivers used electric vehicles and were managed by their respective delivery operators (Uber Eats/Deliveroo etc) and would not cause any disruption.

The Chairperson then gave the objectors the opportunity to question for the applicant and their representative.

Barbara Murray queried how the representative knew that all drivers would use electric vehicles and how many deliveries were anticipated per night. In response the representative said that all delivery drivers used electric cars or bikes now and this can be seen on the street. He also explained that they anticipated a delivery roughly every 1.5-2 hours during the night.

Members of the public queried where drivers would park when collecting deliveries as parking was very difficult to find in the area and asked if customers could go and collect their own orders. They were informed that there would be somewhere for the drivers to stop when collecting orders and that orders could only be collected by delivery drivers and not customers direct. Members of the public also queried the number of deliveries per night and were informed by the representative that this would be approximately 3 or 4 per night.

Clarification was sought as to whether customers would be able to visit the premises between 23:00 and 01:00 and where informed that the premises would be closed to customers then.

The Licensing Officer asked whether the applicant would be agreeable to reducing the hours so that the premises was closed to customers and no deliveries between 05:00 and 06:00 and the applicant and representative agreed to this.

In response to a query about the collection of deliveries disturbing residents sleep the representative explained that the vehicles collecting deliveries would not make a noise, would not disturb residents and there would only be approximately 3-5 deliveries per night.

The Panel asked whether there was a demand for deliveries at night and how many there were likely to be per night. The representative informed the Panel that the applicant was currently having to refuse deliveries at night so was aware of the demand for the service and that there would be approximately 5 deliveries collected per night.

The Panel queried whether delivery drivers used vehicles other than electric vehicles and were informed that they mostly used electric vehicles.

The Objectors were then given the opportunity to express their concerns.

Barbara Murray expressed concerns that the premises were in a very densely populated residential area (pictures of which had been provided) and whilst there were licensed premises and off licences nearby this is not an area that is used to late night opening of any type. Particular public health concerns were the issue of late night noise and the disturbance this could cause for residents and asked the Panel to refuse the application.

Mr Richardson expressed concerns regarding the increase of noise levels that could be caused in a densely populated residential area and was also concerned about parking.

Mr Bonney explained his concerns about the noise and traffic that would be generated and explained that vehicles already drove too fast in the area and caused damage to residents vehicles.

Mr Smith informed the Panel that electric delivery vehicles operating from the back of a nearby restaurant frequently drove over pavement without any due care and additional vehicles would add to this issue. He was concerned that if the application were to be granted it would destabilise the area and bring misery to the neighbours with increased noise and traffic. He informed the Panel that some residents now wish they had not purchased a property in this area as they are concerned about the impact on the value of their asset.

Mr Smith felt that if the application were granted it would mean goodbye to sleep, happy children and happy community and would set a dangerous precedent for off licences all over Medway.

In summing up the representative said that although the premises were in a residential area there were other premises providing 24 hour deliveries in the area such as Tesco and KFC, most drivers used electric vehicles or bikes and did not make any noise.

Mr Richardson summed up by saying that there may be deliveries from other premises such as Tesco or KFC but they are not in a residential area so it was not comparable.

With the exception of the Legal Representative and the Democratic Services Officer, all present left the room during the Panel’s deliberations, returning to hear the Panel’s decision.

Decision:

The Committee has listened carefully to the written and oral submissions from all parties.

The Committee considers that the variation application will pose public nuisance concerns, especially relating to noise nuisance and parking issues in the immediate neighbourhood and locality in the early hours of the morning.

Therefore, the existing licence remains in situ and the variation application is refused.