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 explained the process that the hearing would follow as outlined on page 4 of the agenda and noted that the applicant had received a copy of the “Guidelines for Licensing Hearing Panels”.

The Licensing Officer informed the Panel that the applicant had applied for a New Premises Application at Best Food Centre, 15 – 19 New Road,

Chatham, ME4 4QJ.  All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representatives had been received from, a member of the public, Medway Council Public Health and Kent Police.

The Chairperson invited the applicant to speak in support of their application. Mr Dadds, the agent for the applicant, explained that a previous application had been made and refused. This was a new application and would be judged on its own merits. The presumption was that an application would be permitted where the premises met the four licensing objectives and it was his submission that those objectives would be met with the conditions offered.

The premises is in Chatham cumulative impact area. The cumulative impact area means that there is concern that there are issues in the area relating to alcohol, including street drinking and littering that need to be addressed. The guidance has in the past set out that there is a presumption of rebuttal to a new premises licence and the applicant was required to show why there should be an exception to the local policy to allow the license. This rebuttal assumption has been superseded by statutory guidance which states that if the Council were to refuse that application it would need to explain why those conditions would not meet the concerns and address the licensing objectives.

Mr Dadds stated that it was the applicants view that representations from Kent Police and Public Health Medway Council did not provide specific information regarding nearby premises as the cause of the of the issues in the area. The Panel has to avoid generalisation and need to consider data specific, evidence based, justified and proportionate when making their decision. A recent Magistrates Court decision held that non-specific general data held little weight in decision making.  In this case it was the applicants submission that there was a lack of data nearby and the data presented had not shown a causal link between the recorded crime and nearby premises.

Mr Dadds acknowledged that there were organisations nearby which provided support services to those with alcohol problems such as the Probation Office, but it would be a breach of probation terms if users of the service attended appointments intoxicated. He added that service users attending probation services already had to pass three or four similar premises and no evidence had been presented that this was a cause for concern.

Mr Dadds stated that they had offered robust conditions which would help the premises to meet the licensing objectives, for example they had offered to join the teams link radio system for no less than one year and the premises would stock reduced strength alcohol. Staff would also take part in License Connect training to ensure good compliance with conditions.

Mr Dadds stated that the statutory guidance in relation to cumulative impact areas had changed and the panel was required to consider the economic and cumulative benefit of allowing premises to be licensed. In this case approval of the license application would likely create additional jobs in the area.

Mr Dadds added the licensing authority had raised no objection, there were no objections from elected Members of the Council and the single public objection was in his opinions potentially vexatious.

The Chairperson asked the objectors if they had any questions for the applicant. PC Knight asked the applicant to outline who would be on site at the premises and what previous experience they had. The agent for the applicant stated that the applicant had a wealth of previous experience and was already a Designated License Premises holder. There was a also a personal license holder. PC Knight asked if the applicant would accept a condition that the personal license holder was on site at all times. The agent stated that there would be three personal license holders for the premises and it was the intention for one to always be on site, but it could not guaranteed and was not a condition the applicant was offering. He added that the guidance did not require the Panel to necessitate who would be on the site at any particular time, the Panel had to ensure that a competent system was in place, which the applicant believed was the case in this application.

PC Smuts referred to the intention to use 20% of floor space for alcohol sales, he asked if viability of the business was a dependent on the license application being granted. The agent stated that the license would have a positive effect, but the business was not dependent upon it, it could not be foreseen what percentage of turnover sales would be based on the sale of alcohol.

PC Knight asked if the applicant if they had issues with customers who had been intoxicated, the agent said they had not experienced any material issue.

PC Smuts asked if the applicant would agree to a condition where alcohol sales were only made when purchased in addition to groceries. The Agent stated that the applicant would not agree to such a condition, and he did not feel it was reasonable.

PC Knight asked the applicant if they would outline the differences in conditions from their previous application, the agent stated that they would not do that and each application must be considered on its own merits.

The Public Health Medway representative Ms Murray, asked what the applicant proposed to do to ensure that sales from their premises were not used to facilitate street drinking. The agent for the applicant stated that the representation from the Public Health team was generic in nature, there was no distance identified in her submission, and it did not include up to date information. The applicant had addressed the concerns as best they were able with a responsible and proportionate approach. The applicant would not serve anyone that appeared to be intoxicated, she would undertake Licensing Connect training and would reduce the strength of alcohol sold with a restriction on the sale of single cans.

The Objectors were asked to put forward their case.

PC Knight stated that the premises was primarily convenience store, with the addition of alcohol, the area was in the Chatham Impact Acrea and suffered from crime and disorder, unacceptable levels of domestic abuse, violence, nuisance behaviour, and street drinking. The guidance is clear that the Panel should have the presumption of rebuttal in a Cumulative Impact Area. This area was particularly sensitive with services which support people with alcohol dependency only a short walking distance away, there was a prevalence of drug use and homelessness and the Probation services in the area.

The Medway Public Health representative outlined her objection to the license. The area was one of the highest for issues related to street drinking in Medway and there were regular incidences of anti-social behaviour. The area of the premises covers the majority of the Chatham Impact Area, evidence had been shown in the photographs provided of littering and there was evidence of street drinking just 50-60m from the premises.

The agent for the applicantwas given the opportunity to ask the objectors questions, he asked whether the crime data provided related to New Road, Chatham. PC Knight stated that she could not identify the crimes which had taken place in New Road specifically, however the figures represented an area on or within a short walking distance of New Road. The agent for the applicant if there was any data available in the last three months. PC Knight stated that the most recent available data had been provided.

The applicant’s agent asked the Public Health representative if she was a qualified statistician, the representative confirmed that she was not a statistician, however the statistics were provided by the Medway Council Business Intelligence Team who were qualified to provide such data. The applicant’s agent asked how many of the crimes recorded related to specific crimes such as domestic abuse in the home or in a single setting, the agent added on two visits to the area he had not witnesses the anti-social behaviour described. The Public Health representative stated that she did not have those figures available but domestic abuse was directly linked to alcohol consumption.

Referring to the comment that the agent had visited the area twice without witnessing any anti-social behaviour, the panel asked if the visits were at night. The agent stated that the two visits had been during the day and that the applicants had not had any issues with anti-social behaviour.

The panel asked the agent for the applicant whether it disputed the data provided at p78 of the agenda pack in relation to the prevalence of violence and sexual crime dated February 2026. The agent of the applicant confirmed that the applicant was not disputing the data, but it had not been analysed in relation to the specific application. Some of the crime data would reflect violence in the home or in the town centre. Some of those crimes would not relate to alcohol use and it was difficult to challenge these statistics which were general in nature.

The applicant did not dismiss the challenges faced by the area; however the data was generic or out of date and many of the crimes would have no particular link to the area, the panel had to strike a balance with economic prosperity. The applicant had offered to use Medway radio, take part in monthly information sharing meetings with photos of potential persons of concern and wanted to work with the police.

The panel asked if the applicant wanted to extend the license to be able to deliver alcohol, the agent for the applicant stated that they would not ask for a license to deliver alcohol but would want to reserve the right to review that condition in six to twelve months.

In summing up Public Health Medway representative stated there was a significant crime, deprivation and street drinking problem in the area, which had been designated an Cumulative Impact Area. There were current issues with street drinking and littering, and there were already a significant number of off licences in the area to purchase alcohol. In her view by the nature of the off license application, it would encourage further street drinking and littering. The Cumulative Impact Area was a suitable reason to reason refuse or impose conditions and it the panel was required to test whether the applicant can meet the licensing objectives. The applicant has not been able say that customers would not purchase alcohol to drink in the street and not add to the current issues in the local area.  She believed there was no good reason to depart from the policy in this case.

The Police stated that the Cumulative Impact Area remained in place and relevant in Chatham, this was a sensitive location with particular issues of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour which required active management and their objections to the license remained.

In summing up, the agent for the applicant stated that the objections presented by Kent Police and Public Health Medway were generic or out data, the committee has not received specific information as required by the statutory guidance. The view of the applicant was that they had put in place conditions which would enable them to meet the licensing objectives. He added that no resident, Councillor, or the licensing authority had provided an objection to the application. The burden lies with the objectors. The applicant had offered to put in place robust conditions to meet the licensing objectives and deal with street drinking. Including membership of Medway Safer Partnership, and radios. The applicant had offered to do what was necessary and proportionate to meet the licensing objectives.

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.

Post meeting note:

Following the hearing, an issue came to light which meant that the appropriate course of action was to set aside the decision of the Licensing Hearing Panel on 26 May and hold a re-hearing to consider the application.