Agenda item

To consider a new premises application for the Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road, Chatham following the submission of a representation, 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 Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road, Chatham. All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003, and a representation had been received from Public Health relating to two of the licensing objectives (the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance).

 

The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol (off sales) Monday to Sunday from 10:00 to 22:00.

 

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

 

The representative explained that the premises were in a listed building in a residential area aiming to serve the local community. The applicant informed the Panel that she recognised the premises was in a cumulative impact area and there were genuine issues with anti-social behaviour and public nuisance in parts of Chatham. The applicant said that the key question was whether the premises would add to the cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives.

 

The Panel were informed that the premises was a convenience store in a residential area with a local community who rely on the store for everyday shopping. Alcohol would not form more than 20% of the business as the aim was to supplement customers who were buying groceries. The applicant explained that street drinkers were not the target customer and the premises would not run alcohol led promotions. The premises would be open from 07:00 to 23:00 however the licensed hours applied for were restricted to 10:00 to 22:00 as they did not wish to sell alcohol early in the morning or late at night.

 

The Panel were informed that alcohol would be screened in chillers when not on sale and spirits would be behind the counter with limited self-serve options for alcohol when it was on sale. The premises would be managed by experienced managers who were Personal Licence Holders, were local to Medway and would be involved in the day to day running of the premises.

 

The applicant explained that the premises aimed to know its customers well and promoted responsible operations. The staff were confident to refuse the sale of alcohol if needed and if service was refused this would be communicated to the wider team so that they could all be aware and vigilant.

 

The applicant acknowledged the issues with litter and nuisance in the wider area and had spent time clearing litter to better understand the nature of the issue. The Panel were informed that a number of discarded high strength, single cans were observed and the premises would not be selling high strength alcohol or single cans and this would reduce the likelihood of contributing immediate consumption. The applicant explained that the premises would also clean up the area surrounding the premises to ensure litter was not an issue.

 

The applicant explained that the premises took pride in the local community and aimed to stock local, quality produce. The premises would not be built on high volume alcohol sales and would be a welcoming grocery store in a well managed environment with good rapport and communications with its customers.

 

The applicant explained that as a responsible retailer they operated with conscience and not just compliance. The applicant respectfully submitted that the structured management arrangements, experienced and appropriately trained team already in place, proportionate alcohol hours and layered operating controls demonstrated that they would promote the licensing objectives and not undermine them. The applicant explained they are invested and accountable and part of the community and for these reasons ask the Panel to respectfully consider granting the application.

 

The representative referred to the photos submitted in the supplementary agenda and said that they showed that some of the discarded litter had been there a long time but had now been cleared when they found it.

 

As the objector, Barbara Murray the questioned the applicant and queried how the measures in place were over and above what would normally be expected from a well run premises. The applicant explained there would be fully trained, experienced staff and 3 Personal Licence Holders who communicated well, knew the licensing objectives and attended regular refresher training. Self service of alcohol would be very limited and high strength beers/ciders over 6% abv and single cans would not be sold.

 

The applicant and their representative were asked what products were included under 6% abv. In response they explained that they would not sell super/special brews and high strength ciders as high strength drinks and single cans contribute to domestic violence and anti social behaviour. Stella, Fosters and 1664 would be included under 6% abv.

 

Barbara Murray queried how long it would take to walk to the high street, how the premises would ensure someone did not drink a 4 pack of beers in the street and start causing problems and how close the premises was to the probation office.

 

The representative explained that the high street was a few minutes’ walk away and there were other stores there selling alcohol and the probation office was very close by. The premises would be able to identify street drinkers who may cause a problem, and the premises would not sell alcohol to these people.

 

The Panel expressed concern that the representative had referred to the premises as an off licence and asked the applicant why they thought there was a cumulative impact policy and why the Panel should not adhere to it.

 

The applicant explained that they did not agree with the reference to an off licence, it would be a community led convenience store focusing on local residents and regular customers. The representative explained that the plan was different to others, there would be limited access to self service for alcohol and the premises was focused on grocery items.

 

The Panel queried what practical experience the applicant and store manager had of refusing the sale of alcohol. Both the applicant and the store manager confirmed they had experience of refusing sales and dealing with situations so as not to escalate them. The store manager confirmed he had experience of working in Medway in a convenience store in Gillingham and working in Tesco’s for over 8 years as a team manager.

 

The Panel questioned the applicant’s understanding of the Cumulative Impact Policy. The applicant explained that it was important to have in these areas and enabled the Panel to get to know the applicant so they can know that the premises will not add to problems in the area.

 

The Panel clarified that the cumulative impact area was not just concerned with litter. The representative acknowledged the deprivation, anti-social behaviour and alcohol related crime in the area and explained the policy is designed to protect the area. The representative informed the Panel that there were here to demonstrate why the premises would not add to any issues in the area where crime data had remained stable.

 

The Panel clarified that crime was high in the area and not decreasing and it was unfortunate that Kent Police were not in attendance as they should be in every cumulative impact area hearing.

 

The Panel queried how the premises were going to operate exceptionally to stop any impact on the cumulative impact area. The representative explained that they has prepared a business plan and spoken to Kent Police and they were a larger premises that would handle customers differently and that is why they were exceptional. The plan has limited alcohol (no more than 20%), self-serve was limited and exceptional people would be running the premises.

 

The Chairperson invited the objector 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 and the strong evidence of alcohol related crime and disorder linked to off licences in this area. The area was residential with many houses of multiple occupation and probation office was almost next door to the premises.

 

Chatham Central ward had the highest rate of crime in Medway and Fort Pitt ward had the third highest level of crime with issues of violent crime and anti-social behaviour. The Panel were informed that this data was still current.

 

The Panel were informed of the Public Space Protection Order in Chatham due to issues with alcohol related anti-social behaviour and covers the majority of the Chatham central area including New Road. A general problem with street drinking, anti-social behaviour, litter, urination and defecation in the area was reported and private security had been employed in the High Street to reassure the public.

 

Barbara Murray informed the Panel that the photos taken of litter were not of old litter.

 

The legal advisor to the Panel asked what the relevance was of the probation office being in proximity and Barabra Murray explained that clients attending the probation office would also include some of the street drinking community.

 

In summing up the objectors said they would like to remind the Panel of the cumulative impact area and that it was concentrated not just on litter but on alcohol related crime, anti-social behaviour, begging, alcohol related hospital admissions and drug use. The Panel were informed that the applicant had not shown how the premises would not adversely effect the area, there was no good reason to depart from the policy and it was reasonable to ask the Panel to refuse the application.

 

In summing up the applicants explained that there had only been one objection from Public Health who were concerned about street drinking and a number of conditions had been added to prevent street drinking. The Panel were informed that the police did not object, anti-social behaviour was not going up and there was a need to consider promoting growth and economic benefits.

 

The Panel were informed that the premises were different, there would be added economic benefits to the economy and the employment of local people.

There would be limited space for alcohol, limited self serve options and secure storage and systems in place to refuse sales of alcohol to inappropriate customers. <LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

1.Field_title

 

FIELD_SUMMARY

 

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

2.Field_title

 

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

Field_title

 

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

Field_title

 

FIELD_SUMMARY

 

</TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_SUMMARY

 

</COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

 

<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

(A)Field_title

 

FIELD_SUMMARY

 

</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

(B)Field_quote

 

</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

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:

 

This application was made by Arka Licensing, on behalf of Mrs Alexia Sooriyar for a new premises licence at Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road in Chatham. The application was for sale by retail of alcohol between the hours of 10:00 and 22:00, Monday to Sunday.

 

We have received a representation from Public Health on the 19 January 2026, which was an objection to the grant of this licence based on two licensing objectives not being upheld: the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. There were no other representations from any Responsible Authority, or member of the public.

 

The panel has applied the Licensing Act 2003 and has had regard to the statutory guidance issued under section 182, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, including, its Cumulative Impact Assessment (“CIA”). The statutory guidance is clear that the existence of a Cumulative Impact Assessment is a “strong statement of intent” and the Council’s CIA states that:

 

“If an application is submitted for a premises or club within a cumulative impact area, and there are relevant representations, there is a presumption of refusal by the Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate the premises will not adversely affect the licensing objectives.”

 

Further, “While it is a matter for the applicant what details re included in the operating schedule, where it departs from the relevant cumulative impact assessment outcome the authority will expect there to be a good reason for the departure if it is being asked to make an exception.”

 

This position is not at odds with the amended statutory guidance and ultimately, the panel reminds itself that it must be satisfied that granting the application would not undermine the licensing objectives. The relevance of the CIA is a factor to be considered by the panel within that determination and in doing so will expect the Applicant to demonstrate that an exception should be made in granting their application.

 

The panel has carefully considered all the evidence before it, including the written reports, representations and application. This also includes the supplementary information provided. The panel has also considered all oral representations made today. We have considered this case on its individual merits.

 

The applicant has explained that the intention is to establish a specialist ethnic grocery and food centre, including butchers. She has over six years of experience running a licensed retail premises and has good local knowledge. She confirmed that local need has formed her decision to apply and that alcohol would form only 20% of the floor space. The applicant acknowledges in her application the existence of the CIA area and notes that her premises is a “few metres away” from another off licence operating at 24-hours. The applicant offered a set of tailored conditions to mitigate the cumulative impact. In our view, the only conditions offered which were exceptional to the standard conditions we would expect to see were a prohibition of spirits being sold in bottles less than 35cl and a restriction of beers, lagers, stout and ciders in excess of 6% abv.

 

The hours offered are intended by the applicant to provide mitigation. It was put to us that this package of conditions would uphold the licensing objectives and allow us to grant this application. We are asked to find that the conditions, the management structure and experience and the community approach are exceptional.

 

We have considered the representative received, which provides information of the local area in support of the cumulative impact. We are asked to apply the CIA policy and importantly we have considered the underlying data and harms caused by the cumulative impact in Chatham from alcohol related crime, disorder and nuisance. We note the submission that the conditions offered do not adequately mitigate the cumulative impact of another licensed premises and do not extend beyond those expected of any well-run premises.

 

We have noted the photographic evidence of nuisance caused by litter and accept that some appears to be old, but it is indicative of the cumulative impact and ancillary consequences of further alcohol sales. We have noted that the alcohol is a combination of various strengths and not just high percentage alcohol. We note that the location is particularly relevant given the close proximity to the Probation office, which caters for offenders including those suffering from alcohol dependency. We note that additional security measures are required in Chatham High Street, which is only a short distance from this premises, to mitigate alcohol-related ASB.

 

While we appreciate that this premises is intended to operate as a local convenience offering, and we note the economic benefit and community need stated, we must be satisfied so as to make an exception in this case, and we are not satisfied that the conditions and circumstances proposed would uphold the licensing objectives. We are not satisfied that the granting of this licence would not add to the cumulative impact of the area, even if the business is well-run, community focused and operates the conditions proposed.  We note the clear data behind the CIA which has not been displaced and also that the CIA is a strong statement of intent to protect the community from further harm.

 

Therefore, to uphold the licensing objectives in an area which is deeply deprived and subjected to extensive known and secret alcohol-related consequences, we are not satisfied that the applicant has, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied us that the grant of this licence would not undermine the licensing objectives and therefore we refuse the application.