Agenda item

To consider a new premises application for the Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road, Chatham following the submission of representations, received during the consultation period. 

Discussion:

 

The Chairperson explained the process that the hearing would follow and attendees introduced themselves.

 

Mr Dadds, the agent for the applicant, queried whether the Panel had discussed previous applications with Members from previous hearings. Members confirmed that this was a new hearing with Panel Members that had not been on the Panel for previous hearings and they had not discussed previous applications or hearings with Members.

 

Mr Dadds referred to the hearing as reconvened but was informed by the Panel and the Legal advisor that this was a new hearing and not reconvened. Mr Dadds informed the Panel that he had not received the supplementary agenda and explained that whilst representations can be amplified at the hearing, new information cannot be submitted.

 

The Panel were informed by Mr Dadds that it was unfair to serve documents so late before the hearing, it was not right and proper and asked for the supplementary agenda to be excluded.

 

The Legal advisor to the Panel informed Mr Dadds that the supplementary agenda was sent to him by email on 16 July 2026 and he responded to inform them that a different email address had been used for previous correspondence and he had not had time to consider it.

 

The Panel acknowledged that the supplementary agenda had been served in the correct timelines however they would disregard it as Mr Dadds had not had time to consider it.

 

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.  The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol (off sales) from 10:00 to 22:00. All responsible authorities had been consulted in line with the Licensing Act 2003 and representatives had been received from, a member of the public, Public Health and Kent Police.

 

The Chairperson then invited the applicantto speak in support of their application.

 

The Panel were informed that the premises was a convenience store that wanted to sell alcohol during modest times and nearby premises were open for longer and the nearby petrol station was open 24 hours. Mr Dadds explained that the representations from Kent Police and Public Health relied on the location of the premises in a cumulative impact area, were very general in nature and did not include specific data.

 

Mr Dadds referred to the cumulative impact policy as a statement of intent which does not reverse the burden so the applicant does not have to provide evidence to rebut the presumption that licences will not be granted in cumulative impact areas. He explained that if an application was refused then the Panel needed to show that granting the licence would undermine one or more of the licensing objectives.

 

The Panel’s attention was drawn to the robust conditions that had been applied to the application including a cap of 6% on the strength of alcohol, no sale of single cans, staff training, membership of the Medway Safer Partnership for one year and no home deliveries. Following a request from Kent Police the applicant had also offered to ensure that a Personal Licence Holder would always be present when alcohol was sold.

 

The Panel were informed that the data provided by Public Health was generic and not specific to the premises or alcohol related crimes. The data, drawn from a public website could not be broken down by day, time, and type of location where the crime occurred, was very general in nature and not useful. Mr Dadds said that the information provided by Kent Police was also vague, lacking in detail and did not show that nearby premises caused any issues. The Panel were asked to note that there had not been any objections from the Probation Service, residents and environmental health.

 

The Chairperson asked the objectors if they had any questions for the applicant.

 

The Kent Police representative, PC Knight, asked how much research the applicant had done to establish what the problems were in the area and whether they had experienced any problems since opening.

 

Mr Dadds responded by saying that the Police were seeking to put the burden of crime analysis on the applicant and this should not be the case. The application states what would be done to uphold the licensing objectives including robust conditions. The Panel were informed that since opening in September 2025 there had not been any issues and no street drinkers had been observed at or near the premises.

 

Staff training on conflict management and the levels of staffing at any one time were queried by Kent Police. Mr Dadds confirmed that the application used the Licensing Connect service which is web and app based and includes all required resources, training and an AI assistant. With regards to staffing levels, the Panel were informed that there would typically be one member of staff during the day and 2 members of staff at busier times.

 

The Panel requested clarification regarding the address of the premises as different addresses were quoted in the reports and it was confirmed that 15-19 New Road was the correct postal address.

 

The Panel discussed home deliveries, and it was confirmed that there would not be any home deliveries. With regards to staffing, Mr Dadds confirmed that if there was only one member of staff working it would be a personal licence holder as a personal licence holder would always be present when alcohol was sold.

 

With regards to opening hours and the sale of alcohol, the Panel confirmed that the store would be open from 07:00 to 23:00, with alcohol on sale from 10:00 to 22:00 if the licence were to be granted.

 

Members queried why the cap for the sale of strong alcohol had been set at 6% as the limit in Medway is normally 5.5% and Mr Dadds confirmed the applicant would have no objection to amending the cap to 5.5%.

 

Members queried the area of the plan given to spirits and were informed that this was an indicative plan with spirits kept with other goods such as vapes and medication.

 

The Objectors were asked to put forward their case.

 

PC Knight explained that Kent Police had objected to the application as it undermined the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder, public safety and preventing public nuisance. The Panel were informed that the premises is within the cumulative impact area for Chatham and there were well known issues in the area and a Public Space Protection Order in place as set out in the representation submitted by Kent Police.

 

PC Knight summarised the action being taken to tackle issues in the area including the Clear, Hold Build programme and action taken with regards to Community Protection Warning Notices in response to issues in the area. The Police welcomed the proposed conditions, membership of the Medway Safer Partnership and that a personal licence holder would be present at all times when alcohol was sold.

 

Ms Murray, the Medway Public Health representative outlined her objection to the license. Ms Murray referred to strong evidence of alcohol related crime, disorder and public nuisance in the area which was surrounded by residential properties and houses of multiple occupation. The Panel were informed that Chatham Central and Brompton Ward has the highest rate of violent crime and anti-social behaviour and Fort Pitt Ward has the third highest and both these wards straddle the cumulative impact area for Chatham.

 

Ms Murray informed the Panel that general problems with anti-social behaviour, street drinking, litter and public defecation were still current resulting in the Clear, Hold Build programme and use of private security in Chatham. The Panel were informed that the evidence of litter Ms Murray had submitted was specific to the area, in close proximity to the premises and there was extensive evidence of street drinking in the area.

 

Mr Dadds objected on the grounds that Ms Murray was introducing new information and the legal advisor to the Panel explained that passing observations could be made. Ms Murray went on to refer to a recent visit to the area which was objected to as new information. The Panel were instructed by the legal advisor to dismiss this information about a recent visit to the area and refer to the original representation made.

 

The agent for the applicantwas given the opportunity to ask the objectors questions, he asked the Public Health representative if she was a qualified statistician or licensing expert and the representative confirmed that she was not a statistician or licensing expert.

 

The applicant’s agent asked how many of the crimes recorded related to alcohol and whether they could be broken down by day, time, type of location and Ms Murray confirmed the data could not be broken down to show this.

 

In response to specific questions, Ms Murray confirmed that there was no specific crime data for within 100m of the premises, that she visited the area once a month, that the litter photographed was not old and that some street drinkers she had observed had been reported to the substance misuse service.

 

Mr Dadds asked the Police representatives if they had provided any updated crime data or analysis and was informed that the data was provided when the cumulative impact policy was produced. The Police representatives were asked if there had been any matters arising at the premises since it opened in September 2025 and were informed that there were no reports of issues with alcohol as it was not selling alcohol.

 

In summing up, Public Health Medway representative stated that the evidence used to support the cumulative impact policy was still relevant and there were issues in the area with crime, disorder, anti-social behaviour, begging and street drinking. The evidence presented by the applicant and their agent did not prove the premises would not contribute to issues in the area and therefore the Director of Public Health’s view was that the Panel should refuse the application.

 

In summing up the representative for Kent Police stated that the application did not demonstrate how it would not add to the current issues in the cumulative impact area and surrounding roads. The Police’s view is that granting the licence would undermine the licensing objectives and therefore it should be refused.

 

Before commencing summing up, Mr Dadds said that the hearing had not been easy and he was given the impression by Councillors Browne and Hubbard that they may be pre-determined. The Chairperson interrupted Mr Dadds so that Members had a right to reply and they explained that there was no bias or predetermination and that all the evidence would be considered as this was a fair, open and transparent hearing. Mr Dadds accepted this and continued on this basis.

 

In summing up Mr Dadds said that the data used for the cumulative impact area was at least 3 years old and the data should be provided by Kent Police and not Ms Murray as she is not a statistician or expert. The Licensing Authority did not object to the application and the data could not be shown to be alcohol related or broken down by day, time, frequency or type of location so it had the effect of being misleading.

 

Mr Dadds explained that the representations were very generalised and not specific to the location of the premises. There were no objections from local residents, councillors’, environmental health or the Probation Service and the location of the premises in a cumulative impact area should not be an absolute. If refused the Panel would need to show how the licence would undermine one or more of the licensing objectives and for this premises robust conditions that were proposed to act as control measures regarding any issues in the area.

 

With regards to litter, the agent offered to bottle mark certain products with UV pen so that any litter could be checked. The agent was confident that street drinkers would not be served, this would be a responsible premises, and the decision should be evidence based, justified and proportionate. The premises would employ people in the area and benefit the local community and required a licence to be economically viable and based on the conditions proposed it was requested that the licence 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.

After starting deliberations, the Panel reconvened the hearing to query whether the applicant would be happy to sign up to the Ask Angela Scheme and were informed that this was already in place. Members also queried how alcohol would be secured when the store was open but not licensed. The Panel were assured that alcohol would be covered by blinds in the fridges, that there would be appropriate signage and that the tills would not allow the sale of alcohol outside licensed hours.

 

With the exception of the Legal Representative and the Democratic Services Officer, all present then left the room again during the Panel’s deliberations, returning to hear the Panel’s decision.

 

Decision:

 

This was a new Premises Licence application for Best Food Centre, 15-19 New Road, Chatham ME4 4QJ. 

 

When considering this application, the Panel has had regard to Medway Council Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, particularly the Licensing Objectives and Statutory Guidance issued as per Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and supporting Hearing Regulations.

 

The Licensing Committee carefully considered all the written and oral representations from the applicant and the objectors to the application, namely Kent Police and Public Health.

 

Whilst this premises is located within the Chatham Cumulative Impact Assessment Zone (CIA) and a PSPO area which covers Chatham High Street and surrounding areas, every application is determined individually and on its own merits.                   

 

The Licensing Panel is aware that a 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 in the area.

 

The Licensing Panel determines that this Premises Licence application has demonstrated appropriate and robust conditions which will not undermine the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

The Licensing Panel grants the Premises Licence upon the hours and conditions as per the written application, save the agreed and new conditions submitted at this hearing.

 

For clarification, the further conditions agreed:

 

(i)             Cans and Bottles will be marked with a UV pen with a bottle code specific to the premises licence, the specific cans and bottles will be agreed with by Kent Police. 

(ii)            The premises will have an Ask Angela Scheme in place.

(iii)          The premises will have blinds available for use on all fridges that have alcohol inside.

(iv)          There will be clear signage on display with the premises’ opening hours.

(v)           The Licensee shall ensure that each member of staff authorised to sell alcohol is fully trained regarding the concerns associated with selling to Street Drinkers.

(vi)          The premises will join the Safer Medway Partnership radio scheme for 1 year, this will then be reviewed and continued if there is a benefit to the premises.

(vii)         Condition 32 of Appendix B will be removed and amended to: No home deliveries will take place at the premises, for the off sales of alcohol.

(viii)       A Personal licence holder will be present at the premises for all sales of alcohol.

(ix)          No beer, lager, stout or cider with an ABV of above 5.5% ABV shall be sold at the premises.