Agenda item

To consider a new Premises Licence application for Budgens, 1 Block C, Pioneer Wharf, Chatham, ME4 4HA following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson asked those present to introduce themselves and explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined in the agenda.

The Chairperson acknowledged that a revised operating schedule had been submitted by the agent just before the start of the meeting.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a new Premises Licence for Budgens, 1 Block C, Pioneer Wharf, Chatham

ME4 4HA.  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from the Public Health team, Kent Police, Trading Standards and a member of the public.

The application was for:

Sale by Retail of Alcohol, Off Sales – Daily 06:00 to 01:00

Late Night Refreshment – Daily 23:00 to 01:00

The Licensing Officer confirmed that Trading Standards had withdrawn their representation and that supplementary information had been provided by Kent Police and the agent as set out in the supplementary agenda.

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

The agent explained that the premises was in a new build development as part of a regeneration project with flats above and retail space on the ground floor and would make a positive contribution to the area. The Panel were informed that Budgens had a long-standing history and was now owned by Tesco. The premises would support the local economy and be managed by Jenny Benedict as the Store Manager along with Assistant Store Managers and 20 staff.

With regards to the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) the agent explained that there had been some confusion as to whether the premises was located in the CIA. The agent informed the Panel that the premises would not add to any existing problems in the CIA and would be a supermarket with alcohol sales as a small part of the premises aimed at local residents. The premises would not sell single cans or strong beers and ciders, and according to the revised operating schedule submitted immediately before the meeting, the proposed hours had been reduced to from 06:00 to 01:00 daily to 06:00 to 23:00 daily.

PC Carrie Knight queried whether the applicant and agent were familiar with the area and were informed that the agent had driven around the area. The level of training provided to staff was also queried. The Panel were informed that staff were trained on anti-social behaviour (ASB) and how not to escalate situations and they were trained not to serve people who were intoxicated. The store manager explained that they were experienced in dealing with street drinkers and built good relationships with customers as well as local Police and Police Community Support Officers and had not needed to train staff in conflict management but could do so if needed.

Barbara Murray queried how the applicant would ensure the sale of alcohol did not add to the existing issues of street drinking, ASB and domestic abuse. The agent explained that Budgens were exceptional in the way they operate and manage their stores and do not sell single cans, high strength beers or ciders and do not sell to street drinkers. The stores were managed strictly and would get to know the local area and identify any troublemakers quickly and that being strict from day one helped as it deterred them from visiting the premises. The store manager said there had never been a direct link with them selling alcohol to domestic abuse and it would be difficult to identify this issue.

The Panel questioned the applicant:

·       In response to a question regarding how the sale of alcohol would not worsen the existing issues, the agent acknowledged the reasons for the CIA and said that the premises would be exceptional in that it would not add to the existing issues, it was a supermarket and not an off-licence and had a very small range of alcohol. There would be alcohol control and a management structure with a number of staff working, staff training, 2 assistant managers and weekend managers.

·       The Panel queried whether local inequalities and demand data for alcohol outlets had been considered before making the application. The agent explained that the premises would promote the licensing objectives, would not sell single cans and strong beers and ciders and was part of a well-planned development in a regeneration area with demand for the store from local residents in the flats above.

·       Members expressed concern about the proposed opening hours and the impact on domestic abuse. The agent explained they would work with responsible authorities to address any concerns and that people already had access to alcohol, so it was about how that was managed. The majority of customers would be local and buying other items and the area outside the premises would be kept clean and tidy.

·       The lack of conflict management policy was queried and the store manager explained staff were trained how not to escalate situations and a condition could be added requiring conflict management training.

·       Members asked how the location of the premises in the CIA was missed. The agent explained that a google search had led him to the previous Policy and CIAs in which the premises was not included.

Venky Krishnan clarified that due to the location of the premises in the CIA there was a rebuttable presumption of refusal unless the applicant can evidence that the sale of alcohol would not adversely impact on the licensing objectives. Clarity was also sought as to whether the management structure was the only exceptional circumstances that were being offered.

The agent informed the Panel that it was exceptional as it was a supermarket with a tiny amount of alcohol sales/space with a robust management structure as part of a larger chain. The agent was also happy to add a condition about conflict management training

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

The Public Health representative expressed concern about the strong evidence of high levels of alcohol related crime and ASB in the area as well as public nuisance and disorder. The Panel were informed that the Ward had the highest rate of crime in Medway per 1000 residents including violent crime and sexual offences. There was evidence of public defecation and urination in the area, which was regularly walked to gather evidence. There were large amounts of alcohol related litter within 5-10 minutes walk of premises, not all litter was for super strength alcohol and there had been recent meetings to address alcohol fuelled ASB in the area.

Representatives from Kent Police expressed concerns regarding the high rate of crime and disorder, ASB and public nuisance in the area. The level of hospital related alcohol admissions and alcohol related ambulance call outs were also concerning and the area was part of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) prohibiting drinking in public spaces. Kent Police informed the Panel that the conditions proposed were minimum standards expected of a licensed premises, were not exceptional and should not be considered exceptional because the premises would be well managed. It was Kent Police’s opinion that granting the licence would exacerbate the issues in the area, the application was not exceptional and did not address the concerns highlighted in the CIA.

In summing up the objectors felt that an additional licensed premises would add to the existing issues in the area and the applicant had not shown how they would not add to the existing issues and therefore requested that the licence should not be granted.

In summing up, the agent explained that the issues in the area were understood and that the application was exceptional as it was part of a regeneration project bringing the area out of deprivation and was a large supermarket as opposed to an off-licence. The agent explained the store itself was exceptional as it would not sell single cans, would have an exceptional management structure, and bring employment to the area. The agent offered a condition stating that no more than 15% of the floor space would be designated for alcohol.

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 listened carefully to all the written and oral submissions from the applicant, the Licensing Authority and the representations of all objectors to the application.

The premises would be located within a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) as well as a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) previously known as ‘Alcohol Control Zones’ and are zones which restrict drinking of alcohol in designated public places. The information for this is outlined by Medway Council’s cumulative impact and stress area policy. The CIA was recently renewed until 2027. The area had been identified as one of the most deprived areas of Medway with a high volume of alcohol related crime, disorder, and public nuisance.

The Committee was surprised there was no mention of the premises being within a CIA/PSPO area or how the premises intended to promote the licensing objectives and alleviate crime and disorder/public nuisance in the written application. There was also no mention of the issues with street drinking and its associated anti-social behaviour or what the applicant intended to do, so as to ensure the sale of alcohol will not add to the issues highlighted above.

Due to the existence of the CIA, there is a rebuttable presumption of refusal of the application by the Authority in all but exceptional circumstances, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the premises would not adversely affect the licensing objectives.

Whilst the applicant has in some way orally addressed the above and provided an updated schedule of conditions, the committee did not deem this application as exceptional. The applicant had highlighted the management structure and the nature of the business and the new operating schedule unhelpfully served before the hearing (amongst other representations) as exceptional. However, this in itself was not sufficient and the committee considers the applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the CIA and PSPO issues in Chatham.

After careful consideration of all representations in accordance with Medway Council Licensing Policy and so as to fully uphold the Licensing Objectives, the Committee decided to refuse the License application.