Agenda item

To consider a new Premises Licence application for Tesco Express, Unit 1 Pullman House, 90 Corporation Street, Rochester following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

 

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda.

 

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a new Premises Licence for Tesco Express, Unit 1 Pullman House,

90 Corporation Street, Rochester, ME1 1NH.  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from the Public Health team and members of the public.

 

The application was for:

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol, Off Sales - Sunday to Thursday 10:00 to 21:00

Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 20:00

 

The Licensing Officer confirmed that along with the operating schedule, Tesco Stores Limited proposed conditions and representations that were in the agenda report, supplementary agenda no. 1 provided additional information from the Public Health team and supplementary agenda no. 2 had supporting evidence from the applicant.

 

The Chairperson invited Tesco Stores Limited to speak in support of their application. 

 

The Solicitor for Tesco Stores Limited explained to the Panel that this would be a Tesco Express Store, one of the smaller Tesco stores.  It was designed to be convenient for customers, to do their day-to-day shopping.  He explained that under 10% of all purchases in a Tesco store were alcohol related products.   Alcohol was a small but important part of customer’s purchases and Tesco had a carefully selected range of alcohol. 

 

The Solicitor informed the Panel that Tesco had policies and procedures in place regarding the sale of alcohol, which included a “Think 25” policy, which was linked to a prompt on the till which checked the customer’s date of birth.  They also audited the stores with mystery shoppers who were 17 or 18 years old to check whether they were refused the sale of alcohol.  On-line training was provided to each member of staff and renewed every six months. 

 

CCTV cameras would be located in the store and would cover the entrance, exit and where the alcohol was stored.

 

Tesco would not sell beer or cider that was more than 5.5 abv and they did not sell individual cans of larger or cider. 

 

There would be a management team of 4 with 15-20 staff members.  The Store Manager would adjust the staffing levels during busy periods to ensure the licensing objectives were met.  A risk assessment would be undertaken to determine whether a security officer was required, that was covered under condition 12 on page 33 of the agenda. 

 

The Solicitor informed the Panel that Kent Police had seen all the conditions proposed by Tesco and had not objected to this application.

 

Tesco did not tolerate bad behaviour, if there were issues, the customer would be asked to stop, if they continued they would then be asked to leave, if they persisted then the Police would be called, and the customer would be banned from using that store.

 

The Licensing Consultant for Tesco Stores Limited clarified that during the four dates in February that he observed the local area, which were recorded in the supplementary agenda no 2, he stated that he had not seen any street drinking or other issues that would undermine the licensing objectives.  

 

The Chairperson asked the objectors if they had questions for the applicant: 

 

•           Would a cash point be provided?  The Solicitor said the intention was to have a cash point located outside the store and was currently being signed off.

•           How would Tesco address the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)? The Solicitor confirmed that staff would not sell alcohol to people they considered street drinkers.

•           The four days that the Licensing Consultant observed the premises and local area were in February, when the weather was extremely cold, did he not consider the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol was in place.  He said he was not aware of this protocol being in place.

•           If 1.72 million passengers used Rochester Station, would you consider you have enough staff resources to support these passengers.  The Solicitor confirmed they did.

•           As Tesco had a good neighbour scheme, would you not think that reaching out and consulting local residents would be beneficial?  The Solicitor informed the Panel that Tesco used to liaise with local residents, however, they do not do that now.

 

The Panel questioned the applicant:

 

•           In response to a question regarding the Think 25 policy, the Solicitor and Head of Licensing for Tesco Stores Limited confirmed that they used an external company as mystery shoppers and the young people they used were aged between 18 and 19 years old so there would not be a breach of their policy as they were 18 years old or above.  If they were not challenged the Store Managers would investigate and more training for the whole store would be provided.   

•           If less than 10% of sales were alcohol related, why was it so important for alcohol to be included in the application?  The Solicitor explained that when customers come into a Tesco Store they can buy alcohol along with their normal shopping. 

•           If you knew that the premises would be located within the Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) area, why did you submit an application?  The Solicitor confirmed that other licences had been granted to premises that sold alcohol and were within a CIP.

•           The Panel stated that although the Police did not submit an objection, they were full partners of the CIP and supported the policy.  

•           Following on from a question from one of the objectors, as the observations that the Licensing Consultant undertaken were four days in February when the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol was in place, that meant that homeless people would have been placed in temporary accommodation, which was why the Licensing Consultant did not observe many people either in doorways or street drinkers.

•           The Operations Manager of Tesco Stores Limited informed the Panel that he could not say there were no issues relating to crime in Medway’s stores, however, he stated there were far greater issues in Kent rather than in Medway.  He also explained that the majority of crime statistics were due to theft, rather than alcohol related incidents.

 

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

 

The Public Health representative explained to the Panel that the premises were within the CIP area of Rochester, where there were high levels of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse, begging, public nuisance and alcohol related incidents including street drinking.  Further evidence of alcohol related crimes which included crimes of violence, sexual offences and anti-social behaviour were reported in the supplementary agenda no. 1.

 

The Panel asked what evidence of alcohol related crimes were reported by the premises and was Corporation Street a barrier from the high street.  The Public Health representative did not have specific statistic, the crime data location was approximate and could not say specifically where those crimes occurred.

 

One of the objectors, Sarah Tranter, explained that Rochester was a thriving tourist town and there were approximately 90% of independent businesses.  Her concerns were with professional beggars and street drinkers that had no regard for the area.  Off sales alcohol would have an impact on the high street from those getting off the trains or buses.  The CIP was introduced to protect Rochester from drunken behaviour, please keep it that way.

 

One of the objectors, Steven Hutchins, asked why if Tesco knew the premises were within the CIP area was an application submitted and why was it so important to sell alcohol.  With 1.72 million passengers passing through Rochester, granting the sale of alcohol would expose railway staff, visitors and commuters to alcohol related issues.

 

The Panel asked the objector that in his submission he asked Tesco to consult with him and they did not, what more did he want Tesco to do?  The objector responded that they could have spoken to him, to hear his perspective and consider other conditions that would have been productive to community engagement going forward.

 

In summing up, the objectors confirmed there were unacceptable levels of alcohol related incidents within the area.  The CIP stated an application, within a CIP area, should contain a full explanation on how they would not adversely affect the four licensing objectives.  The measures put in place may deter alcohol related incidents in the immediate vicinity of the store, however, once the alcohol was sold, there was no further supervision.   They also stated that the four days that the Licensing Consultant undertook their observations were during a very cold spell.

 

In summing up, the Solicitor highlighted that alcohol sales made up a small percentage of overall sales, alcohol was not the main sale.  Systems would be put in place such as security guards, the Hub, CCTV and regular staff training.  He confirmed that there were issues within some stores, however, they were mainly theft not alcohol related.

 

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:

 

Medway Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee (the “Panel”) heard on 15 April 2025, an application by Tesco for a new Premises Licence to Tesco Express at Unit 1 Pullman House, 90 Corporation Street, Rochester ME1 1NH.

 

The Panel heard from the applicant and objectors and in reaching its decision had carefully considered those representations received both written and oral. The Panel had also had regard to the absence of representations from the Police, Trading Standards and Environmental Health.

 

The Panel had applied the Licensing Act 2003 (the “Act”), the revised statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, Medway Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Cumulative Impact Policy (a “CIP”) for Rochester High Street.

 

The Panel had reminded itself that the presumption established within the Act was reversed by the existence of a CIP, so that when the CIP was applied, and there were relevant representations, there was a rebuttable presumption of refusal by the Panel in all but exceptional circumstances, unless the applicant could demonstrate the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives by adding to the cumulative impact.  The Panel was minded that there were cogent reasons for the CIP and that the cumulative impact of licensed premises on the licensing objectives in Rochester High Street was significant.  This was reflected within the analytical data supporting the implementation of the CIP.

 

The Panel had regard to the factors outlined in the CIP which would not constitute exceptional circumstances, included: (a) that the premises would be well managed and run, as all licensed premises should meet this standard; (b) the premises would be constructed to a high standard; and (c) that the applicant operated similar premises elsewhere, such as in another licensing authority area, without complaint.

 

The Panel reminded itself that the burden rests with the Applicant to evidence through their operating schedule, risk assessments and proposed conditions, that granting the licence would not add to the cumulative impact in the CIP area; and, that there was no burden on any objector or Responsible Authority to adduce evidence that there would be a negative cumulative impact from the granting of the licence, the burden was on the applicant.

 

The Panel had, in reaching its decision, applied the specific facts and circumstances of this case and assessed the application on its individual merits unfettered.

 

The Panel found that the Applicant had failed to meet the threshold required to satisfy that there were exceptional circumstances allowing them to divert from the established CIP.  The Applicant was a large organisation which was well managed and run, with established policies and procedures and had a record of operating similar premises elsewhere without complaint.  These were not factors which under the CIP could be deemed exceptional. In the Panel’s determination, the proposed ancillary nature of alcohol sales, even with systems and procedures designed to minimise inappropriate sales, would invariably allow alcohol to be sold and taken off site into the area affected by the CIP adding to that cumulative impact. There was not sufficient evidence as to how that issue would be remedied. The circumstances surrounding this application were not exceptional and, in the view of the Panel, the operating schedule and proposed conditions did not alleviate the cumulative impact on the licensing objectives in Rochester High Street. The CIP was in place to protect the public and promote the licensing objectives.

 

The Panel determined that the application should be refused.