Agenda item

To consider a new Premises Licence application for Gepeto’s 42 High Street Chatham ME4 4DS, following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period.

Discussion:

The Chairperson asked those present to introduce themselves.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a new Premises Licence at Gepeto’s, 42 High Street, Chatham. All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003, and representations had been received from Kent Police, Public Health and a member of the public.

The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol (off sales) daily from 09:00 to 23:00.

The applicant and Kent Police had submitted further information which was set out in the supplementary agendas.

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

The applicants explained that they would like to address the representations submitted and explain why granting the Premises Licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.

The Panel were informed that the premises would be a small community focused Romanian and Eastern European convenience store requesting a licence to compliment the provision of groceries. With regards to the prevention of crime and disorder, the store proposed robust refusal of sales when required, use of Challenge 25, staff training, use of an incident log and a fully compliant CCTV system.

The applicants explained that all alcohol would be securely stored behind the counter and would not include cheap alcohol.  The intention was to provide familiar imported products from home for the Romanian community, and the price point would be higher as a result. The premises aimed to serve and underserved community and contribute to the regeneration of the local area.

With regards to public safety, the Panel were informed that the premises had been designed to allow the safe movement of customers and to maximise visibility.

The Panel were informed that steps had been taken to mitigate public nuisance however retailers should not be penalised for the absence of litter bins or public toilets in the vicinity.

With regards to the protection of children, this would be addressed by comprehensive training on safeguarding and refusal of service, no adverts aimed at minors, the use of CCTV and Challenge 25.

As the objectors, Barbara Murray and Chris Webb then questioned the applicant.

In response to a query about the types of alcohol that would be sold, the applicants explained that it would mainly be imported, speciality alcohol for cultural celebrations and home deliveries including beers, wine and spirits. The target customer would be Eastern Europeans who want particular brands of products from home and the premises does not intend to stock cheap alcohol. The applicants explained that all alcohol would be securely stored behind a locked counter and would only constitute around 5% of the stock in the shop.

The issue of customers purchasing alcohol and drinking it in the street was raised. The applicants explained that it would be difficult to guarantee that this would not happen, but the premises would not support that, and street drinkers were not the target customer.

Mr Webb queried how the premises would deal with intoxicated customers. The applicants explained that they would refuse entry and service to anyone that was intoxicated and would not allow anyone that would cause problems to enter the store. All staff would be fully trained to deal with any issues, and the designated premises supervisor would be on the premises.

The Panel queried why the premises, which is in a cumulative impact area, should be given a licence and explained that the measures explained so far would be expected of any licensed premises. The applicants explained that the store was mainly a grocery store with complimentary alcohol sales that would provide a service for target customers.

The Panel asked if the premises would be viable without alcohol sales. They were informed that the alcohol sales would help with viability and make a big difference in ensuring repeat customers for special occasions as the nearest similar stores were in Gravesend or Maidstone.

The applicants informed the Panel that they did not intend to sell single cans or cheap alcohol, and this could be purchased at nearby premises.

The Panel questioned whether alcohol would be advertised in the window and were informed that there would not be any advertising for alcohol.

The Panel queried what percentage alcohol sales would be and were informed that the volume of alcohol was likely to be around 5% but they percentage of business sales was not known as they were not operating yet.

The Panel questioned the applicant’s understanding of the Cumulative Impact Policy. The applicants explained that it was protection in place against ongoing issues in the community and their aim was not to have an adverse impact on the area. The aim was to combat the issues by selling to the right people and not to the wrong people.

In response to a query about home deliveries, the applicants explained that age verification and Challenge 25 would still apply and underage/intoxicated customers would not be served.

The applicants confirmed that the highest abv level was around 4.5% and that the business was not community owned.

The Chairperson invited the objectors to speak in support of their objections.

Barbara Murray explained that the Director of Public Health had objected regarding the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance due to the high levels of alcohol related crime and potential for public nuisance. Chatham Central ward had the highest rate of crime in Medway and Fort Pitt ward had the fifth highest level of crime with issues of violent crime and anti-social behaviour. The Panel were informed that this data was still current.

Concerns with street drinking, anti-social behaviour and alcohol related litter were also highlighted to the Panel.

Mr Webb explained he was speaking on behalf of the City of Rochester Society with over 500 members who live close to, in or adjacent to Rochester High Street. He explained that the main concerns were set out in Appendix E and in an area with a high number of premises that sell alcohol there were concerns regarding crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and increased noise nuisance. Mr Webb informed the Panel that he also supported the points Kent Police and Public Health had made in their representations.

The applicants questioned Barbara Murray about the knowledge of bins in the high street and whether there was any evidence where the alcohol came from that led to crime. The Panel were informed that Barabara did not know about bins in the High Street and the photos showed discarded alcohol cans/bottles but she did not know where it specifically came from and was from an accumulation of premises in the area which had led to the policy. The applicants queried the evidence of low cost alcohol and links to specific premises and crime. Barbara Murray confirmed that there was evidence of low cost alcohol but there was no link between specific crimes and premises.

The Panel asked the objectors whether the premises target customer audience alleviated any of their concerns. Barabra Murray said that the issues in the area were not confined to a particular community however there was an issue with problematic and excessive drinking in some Eastern European communities and these issues could impact any part of the community. Chris Webb explained that it addressed some of the concerns but there was still potential for this premises to impact negatively on the local community.

The Panel explained that Kent Police had objected but were not able to attend today and their concerns were set out in appendices E and G.

In summing up the applicants explained that they were responsible licence holders wanting to build a sustainable, community focused premises and the licence to sell alcohol would allow them to do so. They would not want to be responsible for any issues, were open to amending hours for the sale of alcohol as this was not the main focus of the premises and requested that the application be granted.

In summing up the objectors said they did not believe the applicant had demonstrated how the sale of alcohol would not impact on the licensing objectives. Premises in a cumulative impact area need to show they will not add to existing issues and despite the sincerity and rationale about the target customer, the premises could have an impact in the area and could expand their range of products to include cheaper alcohol in future. Therefore, the objectors requested that the application was refused.

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 carefully considered the evidence in this case, both the application and their written and oral submissions, and the objections, both oral and written evidence. The Panel applied the law and had regard to our policies.

The Panel decided to refuse the application due to the location of the premises in the cumulative impact area, the density of other licensed premises in the area and the cumulative impact policy that is in place.