Agenda item

To consider a Full Variation Application for the Premises Licence at Newlands Newsagents, 111 High Street, Rochester following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson acknowledged that the applicant had arrived for the hearing earlier but had now left for unknown reasons and attempts to contact them by telephone were unsuccessful.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a full variation of the premises licence for Newlands Newsagents, 111 High Street, Rochester, ME1 1JS which was in a cumulative impact area (CIA).  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representations had been received from the Public Health team, members of the Rochester City Centre Forum and a local resident.

The application was to vary the hours for the sale by retail of alcohol from 07:00 to 19:30 every day to 07:00 to 21:30 every day.

As the applicant was not present the Chairperson noted that the Panel had read the application and that questions could not be asked by the Objectors or Panel.

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

The Public Health representative expressed concern regarding the location of the premises in the CIA which covers Rochester High Street and surrounding areas. Issues in the area with street drinking, alcohol related crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance were highlighted, and the Panel were referred to crime rates in Appendix C to the report.

Mrs Sarah Tranter, a local resident and member of the Rochester City Centre Forum, expressed concerns regarding street drinking, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises. The Panel were informed of recent anti-social behaviour that had been witnessed in the area. Mrs Tranter acknowledged the value of the premises provided by the applicants and the marvellous job that they did but felt that if the hours were extended to 21:30 it would add to problems in what was already a vulnerable area.

The Panel confirmed that both objectors present were objecting to the length of the hours being extended by 2 hours.

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 Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had sufficient notice and knowledge of the hearing. The Applicant had attended but left prior to the hearing taking place. There had been numerous attempts to contact the Applicant. In that circumstance, the Panel had determined that it is in the public interest to hold the hearing in the Applicant’s absence pursuant to The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, regulation 20(2)(b). In doing so, pursuant to regulation 20(3), the Panel has considered the application and supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant.

The Panel carefully considered the individual merits of the application, including the written representations, objections and also the oral representations heard. This included submissions from Public Health and Sarah Trantor.

The application relies on commercial viability to justify an extension of the licensable hours but offers no evidence to demonstrate how the additional hours will not add to the cumulative impact of the area and thereby negatively impact the licensing objectives. The Panel noted that the Cumulative Impact Policy is not an absolute bar to granting this variation but feel that on the individual merits of this case, there are no proper or adequate reasons and no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from policy, nor to demonstrate that the licensing objectives would be promoted in granting this variation.

The Panel therefore refused the application in its entirety.