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 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 and two members of the public.

 

The application was for:

 

Sale by Retail of Alcohol, Off Sales – Daily 09:00 to 23:00

 

The Chairperson invited the applicants and their agents to speak in support of their application.

 

Applicants representations

 

Nick Semper informed the Panel that he had received an email from Emily Lane-Blackwell, the Licensing Manager conceding that there was no rebuttable presumption of refusal and no requirement to show exceptional circumstances under the law or in any of the relevant guidance with regards to the granting of licences in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

 

The Panel were informed that the applicants had 20 years’ experience of operating licensed premises, the proposed Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) had held a personal licence since 2006 and Budgens had over 30 years’ experience and had never come to the attention of the Responsible Authorities in any of their stores.

 

The Applicants explained that the proposed new store was part of a new development in Chatham town centre The site would include 6 retail units and will serve the residents of 292 new homes and visitors.

 

The Panel were informed that the store would include the use of staff entry and exit points, extensive CCTV coverage and an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system called Facewatch to allow staff to be easily alerted to the presence of any banned customers and intervene. The store would also sign up to the Safer Medway Partnership and use of their radio system.

 

The Panels attention was drawn to the merits of the application by a professionally run and properly resourced operation under an operating schedule which is fit for purpose and therefore the licensing objectives are unlikely to be undermined.

 

The challenges in the area were acknowledged but the store would not attract street drinkers as they would not be served. It was explained that whilst you could restrict sales and have measures in place to address concerns the store could not seek to manage the behaviour of individuals in the wider area.

 

With regards to alcohol related crime, data had been requested from Kent Police under a Freedom of Information request, but this had not been provided. The crime maps in the supplementary evidence provided by the Police showed 12 alcohol related crimes in 7 months and 33 alcohol related anti-social behaviour (ASB) incidents.

 

The Panel were informed that the DPS was aware of issues in the local area and the relevance of the CIA was not being downplayed but the applicants and their representatives disagreed with what a CIA empowered authorities to do.

 

The Panel were informed that any decision must be evidence based and not based on fear and speculation and were invited to look favourably on this application from an experienced and respected operator.

 

The objectors were given the opportunity to question the applicant.

 

In response to a query about Facewatch, the Panel were informed that the database maintained by Safer Medway Partnership could be uploaded to Facewatch to identify banned nominals. The system would then alert managers via a message and at a tablet at the till so that staff could then intervene.

 

PC Carrie Knight queried why the premises needed to sell alcohol and how much space had been allocated to this.

 

The Panel were informed that all Budgens premises are licensed to sell alcohol, and this was provided as part of a wraparound total meal service. Spirits would be stored behind a kiosk, beer and wine would be kept in a separate chilled room called a beer cellar near to the till point under the scrutiny of store assistants. The space allocated to alcohol was based on a space matrix and had not yet been calculated.

 

Barbara Murray queried how the applicant could assure the Panel they would not add to the issues in the CIA. In response, the Panel were informed that there would be polices to reduce the likelihood, anyone causing problems would be banned and there would not be promotions encouraging excessive consumption of alcohol. However, the store could not seek to manage the behaviour of customers beyond the immediate vicinity.

 

Mr Fowler queried how internet sales would be managed. The retail of alcohol safety guidance best practice would be adhered to, including the use of Challenge 25 and not delivering to public spaces or parties.

 

Mr Fowler informed the Panel that many previous licences granted limited the strength of beers, lagers and ciders to 5.5% abv but this application set the upper limit at 6.5% abv. The applicant’s representative explained that Budgens was not a booze busting off licence and each application should be considered on its own merits.

 

The Panel were informed that there were currently no plans to employ security guards however this would be risk assessed if there were any issues. The applicants explained they were experienced in operating stores in other challenging areas.

 

The Panel questioned the applicant:

 

·       In response to a query regarding whether Budgens had other licensed premises in a CIA a specific response could not be given but the Panel were informed Budgens had 500 stores and over 4000 Premier stores covering vast areas of the country.

·       Members questioned how often Facewatch was updated and were informed it automatically updates from the Safer Medway Partnership Disc system.

·       Members queried what had been done to act as a good neighbour. The Panel were informed that Budgens were a responsible neighbour who had contributed towards standards and guidance, were considering introducing ‘Ask for Angela’ and had liaised with John Brice at the Safer Medway Partnership.

·       With regards to the plan for the store, the Panel were informed that this still needed to be finalised and would be based on the customer journey.

 

Objectors representations

 

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

 

PC Carrie Knight expressed concerns from Kent Police about the risk with alcohol sales in a challenging area that was in a crime hotspot, CIA and Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). The Panel were informed that Chatham was one of the most deprived areas in Medway with unacceptable levels of alcohol related crime, ASB and hidden harms and that granting further licences would be inconsistent with the licensing objectives.

 

Kent Police were concerned that the conditions offered were standard and did not provide meaningful mitigation against the areas of concern raised. Concerns were raised as to whether the proposed DPS had local knowledge and understood the issues in the area.

 

The Panel were informed that persistent ASB in the area was a cause for concern and beat officers were concerned about the supply of alcohol in the area. 24 persons had been issued with a Community Warning Protection in the vicinity (the highest number in the whole of Kent) and of these 7 people had failed to comply and were now subject to prosecution.

 

Kent Police felt that another licensed premises would undermine the ongoing work in the area including partnership working and numerous arrests and that no conditions could be applied to address the concerns.

 

The applicant’s representative queried whether Kent Police had any reason to suggest whether the proposed DPS was not a fit and proper person. PC Carrie Knight confirmed the answer was no.

 

The applicant acknowledged the issues in the area but queried the numbers of alcohol related crimes and ASB in the supplementary maps provided by the Police and whether this illustrated a high crime area.

 

Barbara Murray expressed the Director of Public Health’s concerns that the area was subject to high levels of alcohol related crime and ASB and already subject to a PSPO. The issues of street drinkers, ASB and litter were highlighted, and this was evidenced by the photos submitted. The Panel were informed that much of the discarded litter was not for high strength alcohol and including bottles of spirits, particularly Vodka.

 

As a local resident, regular visitor to Chatham Town centre and litter picker, Mr Fowler expressed concerns about street drinkers and ASB in the area. The need for an improved retail offer was recognised but as a member of 2 local PACTS (partners and communities together) concerns were expressed about the levels of litter. The Panel were informed that there were large numbers of 35cl Vodka bottles found as well as multi pack packaging.

 

Concerns were also expressed for the safety of staff working in the store and explained that the use of Street Ambassadors was being trialled and hopefully this would continue subject to further funding.

 

The applicants’ representative offered to include a new condition prohibiting the sale of 35cl bottles of Vodka and explained they would like to help fund the work of the Street Ambassadors.

 

Objectors summing up

 

In summing up the objectors reminded the Panel of the presence of the CIA and the areas for concern they had raised and said that it was reasonable to believe that the sale of alcohol would contribute to crime and disorder and public nuisance in the area.

 

Applicants summing up

 

In summing up the applicants and their representatives explained that Budgens were not a budget provider of alcohol to street drinkers. The DPS was familiar with the site and more than capable of being the DPS for this premises. The Panel were informed that the numbers of alcohol related crime and ASB reported by the Police did not make this a high crime area and any decision should not be based on fear and speculation. Operating under the model conditions and additional conditions offered today, with the use of Facewatch, would promote the licensing objectives and not undermine them and respectfully requested that the application be granted.

 

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 Licensing Sub-Committee considered the following evidence:

 

-       The written application and supporting documentation (including supplementary documentation; and further the FaceWatch information provided by the Applicant).

-       The written representations from Responsible Authorities and other persons.

-       The oral representations heard today, including those from the Applicant and their representatives, Kent Police, Public Health and Bryan Fowler.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee has followed or had regard to (as the case may be) relevant primary and secondary legislation, including the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance issued under section 182 (the “Guidance”), its own statement of licensing policy and the area specific Cumulative Impact Assessment (“CIA”) policy.

 

Where there is conflict between primary or secondary legislation and policy, we have determined any decision in favour of the legislation, and any applicable common law principles. We note that the CIA has not been updated since the Guidance was amended and pursuant to paragraph 1.12 in such an overlapping period, we should have regard to the Guidance and our existing licensing policy but ultimately follow primary legislation. Therefore, where we have departed from policy, or Guidance, we felt that there was good reason to do so based on the individual circumstances of this case and upon reflection of the amended Guidance.  

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee has determined to grant the application subject to conditions.

 

We have considered all the evidence before us, both written and oral, and determined this application on its own individual merits.

 

The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate from their operating schedule that the grant of a premises licence would promote the licensing objectives. Furthermore, we remind ourselves that applicants are expected to include positive proposals in their application on how they will manage any potential risks identified within the CIA. This includes an expectation for applicants to demonstrate: an understanding of how the policy impacts on their application; any measures they will take to mitigate the impact; and why they consider the application should be an exception to the policy (Guidance, paragraph 8.43).

 

We remind ourselves that each application should be determined on its individual circumstances and we are not fettered in our discretion by the existence of the CIA and note that it is open to us to grant an application where we consider it is appropriate and where the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that they would not be adding to the cumulative impact (Guidance, paragraph 14.40), as a central issue in demonstrating that they would not undermine the relevant licensing objectives.

 

We note that our policy requires us to apply a rebuttable presumption and only grant the application where exceptional circumstances apply, at paragraph 6.3. It was submitted to us, by the Applicant, that our CIA policy is inconsistent with the Guidance and law.

 

We heard that this position was accepted by the Licensing Team in an email to the applicant; this was not rebutted by the Licensing Officer. We further note that no submissions were made objecting to this interpretation or departure during the hearing by any other party.

 

The Guidance, at paragraph 14.39 provides:

 

“When publishing a CIA a licensing authority is required to set out evidence of problems that are being caused or exacerbated by the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the area described. The evidence is used to justify the statement in the CIA that it is likely that granting further premises licences and/or club premises certificates in that areas (limited to a kind described in the assessment), would be inconsistent with the authority’s duty to promote the licensing objectives.”

 

And also, at paragraph 14.40:

 

"In publishing a CIA a licensing authority is setting down a strong statement of intent about its approach to considering applications for the grant or variation of premises licences or club premises certificates in the area described. Having published a CIA a licensing authority must have regard to the assessment when determining or revising its statement of licensing policy. It is therefore expected that, in respect of each relevant application in the area concerned, the licensing authority will be considering whether it is appropriate to make a representation to its committee as a responsible authority in its own right. The CIA does not, however, change the fundamental way that licensing decisions are made. It is therefore open to the licensing authority to grant an application where it considers it is appropriate and where the applicant can demonstrate in the operating schedule that they would not be adding to the cumulative impact. Applications in areas covered by a CIA should therefore give consideration to potential cumulative impact issues when setting out the steps that will be taken to promote the licensing objectives. Where relevant representations are received and a licensing authority decides to grant an application it will need to provide the applicant, the chief officer of police and all parties who made relevant representations with reasons for granting the application and this should include any reasons for departing from their own policy.”

 

We are satisfied that we do not need to depart from our policy, in that the question to which we must focus our mind is whether the granting of this premises licence is likely to add to the cumulative impact of the area. This question is consistent with our policy and the Guidance. In doing so, we do not apply a rebuttable presumption, but we do note that the Guidance invites a starting point of granting an application for a new premises licence to likely be ‘inconsistent with the authority’s duty to promote the licensing objectives’. Further, we do expect (as outlined in the Guidance) that the applicant will demonstrate that they will not be likely to add to the cumulative impact. To that end, we are satisfied that we can have regard to both our policy and the Guidance in accordance with the law. 

 

The Sub-Committee note that the Licensing Authority, as a Responsible Authority, did not make any representations in respect of this application.

 

We found the following:

 

On the 22 September 2025, an application was received for a new premises licence in respect of Charworth Ltd who will be trading as Budgens, at 1 Block C Pioneer Wharf, Chatham ME4 4HA.

 

That application was correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed on the premises for the required period.

 

Representations were received from:

 

-       Public Health (on the 2 October 2025), relating to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

-       Kent Police (on the 17 October 2025), relating to the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the prevention of public nuisance.

-       ‘Other Persons’, including Mr Fowler (no date provided) and a Mr Hutchins (on the 17 October 2025).

 

This Licensing Sub-Committee has been convened today, the 11 November 2025, to determine whether to grant the premises licence.

 

We heard that Charworth Ltd operate nineteen stores across the United Kingdom and have operated for near thirty years. The proposed DPS has nearly twenty years’ experience and is a member of senior corporate management. We heard that she would have personal involvement in the daily management of the premises.

 

We found that there was no valid objection to the proposed DPS. The Police failed to satisfy us that (1) there was any objection, (2) that the circumstances are otherwise exceptional circumstances whereby the appointment of the proposed DPS would undermine the crime prevention objective.

 

We found that Charworth Ltd have provided unchallenged evidence that they have operated stores across the United Kingdom without any negative intervention from Responsible Authorities. That they follow the relevant responsible retail guidance.

 

We found that the applicant demonstrated an understanding of the issues resulting in the CIA and the impact on their application. The impact is reflected within the CIA data, which is formulated from historic and recent data. We find that the cumulative impact is still a relevant to our determination today. We heard that the applicant has an acute understanding of the issues impacting the local area.

 

We found that there was inconsistent evidence in relation to crime statistics, which the applicant contended showed 12 alcohol related incidents over the preceding seven months. The Police explained that it is greater than this but accepted that due to resources not all reports can be flagged or actioned.

 

Public Health indicated that in their personal experience and evidence they have witnessed alcohol related crime; as did Mr Fowler. There was disagreement as to whether this amounted to a high crime location.

 

We have heard of the levels of CPW/CPNs issued in the area. We have heard that the area is deemed a hot spot. In our determination, based on the evidence we have seen, we are of the view that this is a high crime location.

 

However, we do feel that adequate conditions will alleviate this concern.

 

We were referred to the Guidance, at paragraph 2.27 (public nuisance) and 1.16 (licensing conditions – general principles), by the Applicant, as justification that the statistical data covered a wider locality than the immediate vicinity of the store and that the responsibility of a licensed premises should only extend to the immediate vicinity of the premises, being area under its control.

 

We accept that a premises cannot control the behaviour of customers once beyond the immediate vicinity. We also note as per paragraph 14.21 that the impact of alcohol sales can be outside of some distance from a premises. However, in our view, the responsibility of licensed premises is to promote the licensing objectives, which does extend beyond the immediate vicinity, particularly, where premises intend to conduct internet sales or their alcohol sales could increase the cumulative impact on an area or increase the more discreet alcohol related crime and disorder: including but not limited to domestic abuse.  We do have concern that this distinct impact on the licensing objectives was not fully appreciated by the applicant in their submissions; but we do note that the proposed conditions in relation to internet sales and some of the control mechanisms explained do mitigate the impact on the licensing objectives and the cumulative impact.

 

We found that the applicant intended to use a specialised artificial intelligence security program that would allow identification of individuals identified as street drinkers, banned individuals or those otherwise recorded by agencies such as Safer Medway Partnership. This notifies store staff and allows them to prohibit the sale of alcohol to individuals which would otherwise cause or risk crime and disorder or public nuisance.

 

We heard evidence that the locality is affected because of the cumulative impact of alcohol sales in the locality by extensive alcohol related litter. We heard that the applicant intends to ensure that the curtilage and frontage of their premises will be free of litter and that those customers seen or known to litter will be banned. In our mind, noting particularly the Guidance at paragraph 2.27, the premises licence holder is responsible for litter in their immediate vicinity. 

 

We have heard that the retail business model of the store, including the pricing structure and location of alcohol will deter street drinkers purchasing alcohol. We accept the assertion that availability is not always the determinative factor when restricted by financial availability.

 

We heard that the premises would contain present alcohol for sale in two forms, firstly, that all spirits will be securely sold from behind a secure kiosk. The second, is that all other alcohol would be stored and sold from a separate, refrigerated room which is independent and separated from the main shop floor behind a lockable sliding door for additional security. This was referred to as the “cave” or “cellar”. This is not reflected within the plan proposed and we found that this was a vital mechanism to uphold the licensing objectives by properly controlling and restricting inappropriate sales, or sales to persons who would contribute to the issues in the cumulative impact area. The applicant confirmed that their plan is not a final or accurate reflection, which causes us difficulty as (pursuant to the Guidance, para 8.34) the applicant is required to provide us with a plan with “sufficient detail…to be able to determine the application.” We did not find that the plan was sufficient to do so; but, on reflection, we felt that a condition to require the inclusion of the area referred to above is a necessary and proportionate condition to uphold the licensing objectives and could alleviate this concern. It formed an integral part of the applicant’s submission as to how they would not undermine the licensing objectives and was confirmed as being part of a ‘superseded’ plan that was not before the panel. As such we find that it is necessary for such a space to be included in the plan to promote the licensing objectives, specifically, the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance.

 

The Applicant accepted the representation from Mr Fowler and agreed to a condition not to sell spirits of less than 35cl. We find that this is a necessary and proportionate condition to promote the licensing objectives as the evidence of public nuisance littering was inclusive of spirits in volumes below 35cl. Further, we heard evidence of litter caused by single purchase cans and bottles, particularly of beer and cider. We saw photographic evidence of the same. We therefore find that the sale of single cans or bottles would undermine the licensing objectives and would be likely to add to the cumulative impact of the area. We therefore deem a condition restricting the same to be necessary and proportionate.

 

We heard representations in relation to the hours of 21:00pm to 23:00pm, as this would mean that the premises is open later than other premises in the area. We heard from the applicant that it is not only street drinkers who want alcohol in the evening and that the applicant’s operating model will deter street drinkers. We found the representations to be more persuasive on the evidence and found that the additional licensable hours would be likely to add to the cumulative impact of the area and as such would undermine the licensing objectives. We therefore deem a restriction on the licensable hours between 21:00pm and 23:00pm to be a necessary and proportionate condition to promote the licensing conditions, specifically, to prevent crime and disorder and to prevent public nuisance.

 

We heard representations that the sale of beer, lager, cider (which we take to include other similar items such as spirit mixtures) in excess of 5.5% ABV (alcohol by volume) would be likely to add to the cumulative impact of the area and that the applicant has proposed a condition of restricting the sale of alcohol in excess of 6.5%. We heard that this reflects the applicant’s intention to operate a supermarket experience, rather than an off-licence experience. However, we do find that the sale of beer, lager, cider and spirit mixtures in excess of 5.5% ABV is likely to undermine the licensing objectives by encouraging purchase by street drinkers and those likely to cause anti-social behaviour thereby adding to the cumulative impact of the area. We are persuaded by the representations on this point and as such deem a condition restricting the sale of beer, lager, cider and spirit mixtures to those no exceeding 5.5% is a necessary and proportionate condition to uphold the licensing conditions: specifically, the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance.

 

We therefore found that where the representations received persuaded us that the licensing objectives would be undermined (and as part of that assessment whether the grant of the licence was likely to add to the cumulative impact of the area) that those concerns could be alleviated with appropriate and proportionate conditions being imposed.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee found the following to be irrelevant considerations:

 

-       The offer to fund a street ambassador initiative in the local area.

-       Membership of any organisation

-       Any previous application or decision in respect of a premises licence

-       Speculative assertions

-       Conditions or business models of other premises

-       Planning or building control considerations; including any impact caused on the planning procedures or development of the local area due to any refusal or condition imposed – paragraph 14.19, Guidance.

 

CONDITIONS

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee does, therefore, based on the evidence and reasoning provided above, impose the following conditions on the premises licence as they are necessary and proportionate to promote the licensing objectives:

 

General

 

1.    All persons who sell or supply alcohol to customers must have licensing training.

2.    Training must take place within six weeks of employment.

3.    Any new employees will be supervised until the training has taken place.

4.    Refresher training should be repeated a minimum of every six months or earlier if required due to changes of legislation.

5.    Training records must be kept on the premises and shall contain the nature, content and frequency of all training.

6.    Records must be made available for inspection by Police, a police licensing officer and authorised officers from the Local Authority on demand either electronically or in hard copy.

 

Prevention of Crime and Disorder

 

1.    There shall be no sale of single cans or bottles of any beer, lager or cider.

2.    No beer, lager, cider or spirit mixtures in excess of 5.5% ABV (alcohol by volume) or above shall be sold at the premises.

3.    No miniature bottles of spirits of 35cl or below shall be sold from the premises.

4.    No alcohol will be displayed close to any access points from the street.

5.    Alcohol to be displayed only on shelving within a dedicated refrigerated room, which shall be accessible by a sliding, lockable door (referred to by the applicant as the ‘cellar’).

6.    Spirits to be displayed behind the counter.

7.    CCTV will be provided in the form of a recordable system, capable of providing pictures of evidential quality in all lighting conditions particularly facial recognition.

 

7.1.     Cameras shall record all ingress and egress to the premises, fire exits and all areas where the sale and supply of alcohol occurs.

7.2.        Equipment must be maintained in good working order, with recordings correctly time and date stamped. Recordings must be kept in date order, kept for a period of 31 days and handed to police and/or authorised officers on demand.

7.3.        The premises licence holder must ensure at all times a DPS or appointed member of staff are on the premises and are capable and competent at downloading CCTV footage in a recordable format to the police and local authority on demand.

7.4.        The recording equipment and discs/tapes shall be kept in a secure environment under the control of the DPS or other responsible named individual.

7.5.        An operational weekly log report must be maintained and endorsed by signature, indicating the system has been checked and is compliant. In the event of any failures, any action taken is to be recorded.

7.6.        In the event of any technical failure of the CCTV equipment the premises licence holder or DPS must report the failure to the police licensing officer immediately at licensing.north.division@kent.police.uk.

8.    All staff shall be trained to recognise signs of drunkenness, how to refuse service and the premises’ duty of care. Documented records of completed training shall be kept for each member of staff. Training shall be regularly refreshed at no greater than 12 monthly intervals. Training records shall be made available for inspection upon request by a police officer or an authorised officer of the Local Authority.

9.    The premises shall display prominent signage at the entrance of the store and any location where alcohol is displayed or sold indicating that it is an offence to sell alcohol to anyone who is drunk.

10. An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to a police officer, police licensing officer or Council authorised licensing officer. It must be completed within 24 hours of the incident and will record the following:

10.1.              All crimes reported to the venue

10.2.              All ejections of patrons

10.3.              Any complaints received concerning crime and disorder

10.4.              Any incidents of disorder

10.5.              All seizures of drugs or offensive weapons.

10.6.            Any faults in the CCTV system, searching equipment or    scanning equipment.

10.7.              Any refusal of the sale of alcohol.

10.8.              Any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service

11. There will be a minimum of 3 members of staff on duty at all times.

12. Artificial Intelligence Cameras/Technology, including but not limited to Facewatch (or a similar program) will be in operation during all licensable hours.

12.1.        That system will encompass all ingress and egress routes to the premises including fire exits and all areas where the sale and supply of alcohol occurs.

12.2.        Equipment must be maintained in good working order, be correctly time and date stamped, and recordings must be kept for a period of at least 31 days and handed to the Police upon request.

12.3.        The premises licence holder must ensure at all times a DPS or appointed member of staff is capable and competent to download any footage generated in a recordable format to the Police and Local Authority upon reasonable request.

12.4.        In the event of technical failure of the program or related equipment the premises licence holder or DPS must report the failure to the Police Licensing Officer within 24 hours unless it can be repaired before that time.

13.   Staff to be trained on the ‘Ask Angela’ scheme and for it to be implemented as long as it is still in operation.

14.   The premises shall display prominent signage at every entrance and exit of the premises encouraging customers to be respectful of neighbours and the surrounding area.

 

Public Safety

 

1.    There shall be first aid equipment and materials available at the premises whilst the premises are trading.

 

Prevention of Public Nuisance

 

1.    Notices shall be prominently displayed at all exits requesting patrons to respect the needs of local residents and businesses and leave the area quietly.

2.    A waste receptacle for use by patrons will be provided outside the premises. The receptacles outside the premises shall be emptied at least once every day, and otherwise as often as required during trading hours.

3.    Litter within the immediate vicinity of the premises is to be removed tidied and maintained at least once every day, and otherwise as often as required during trading hours.

 

The Protection of Children from Harm

 

1.    A Challenge 25 proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises.

2.    The premises shall display prominent signage indicating at (insert proposed location) that it is an offence to buy, or attempt to buy, alcohol for a person under the age of 18.

3.    The premises licence holder or designated premises supervisor must keep a refusal register. Staff to be trained to complete a refusal book/record immediately after the refusal but no later than the end of their shift. The register must be kept on the premises and will detail:

a) Day, date & time of refusal.

b) Item refused.

c) Name or description of person refused sale.

d) Reason for refusal.

4.    Each entry is to be checked and signed by the designated premises supervisor or licensee no later than 1 week after the entry has been made. The register must be made available for police, police licensing officers and authorised officers from Medway Council on demand either electronically or by hard copy.

5.    Information shall be displayed in the Manager’s Office giving details of what to do if there is a cause for concern regarding a child’s welfare. This shall include:

a) Reporting to Medway Children’s Services, with correct telephone numbers and email contact.

b) Dialling 999 in the event of an immediate threat.

6.    The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that any person who purchases from any website shall register with the site. Such registration details shall include the person’s full name, full address, date of birth and phone number. Records of such checks shall be kept for a period of 12 months and shall be produced on demand of the police or an ‘authorised person’ (as defined by Section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003) or an authorised Trading Standards Officer of the Council.

7.    The terms and conditions of the company website will contain the following: -

a) The company will not sell alcohol to any person until it has been verified that the person is over 18 years of age.

b) An age confirmation requirement when registering to purchase.

c) Reference to the operating of a Challenge 25 policy.

d) That no parcels will be left by the courier if the person at the delivery address is under 18 years of age.

8.    The person delivering the alcohol to the premises shall operate a Challenge 25 policy and shall require proof of age prior to the alcohol being handed over. No alcohol shall be handed over to a person under 18. The only acceptable proof of identity shall be a photographic driver’s licence, a passport or an Identity Card containing the PASS Hologram. The website shall contain a declaration to this effect.

9.    The Premises Licence Holder will obtain and keep a record of evidence confirming that proof of identity and age has been checked for a period of 12 months and shall be produced on demand of the police or an authorised person.

 

Licensable Hours

 

1.    The Supply of Alcohol (off-sales) shall be permitted between the hours of 09:00am and 21:00pm.