Agenda item

Discussion:

 

The Panel heard an application for a new premises licence in respect of Best One, 356 – 358 High Street Chatham ME4 4NP.

 

At the commencement of the hearing it was noted that the premises to which the application related was located in Chatham High Street and not Gillingham High Street as printed on the heading of the committee report.
 

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised that the application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed on the premises for the required timescale.

 

The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer advised that the application was for the following:

 

Hours the premises are open to the public

 

Monday – Sunday                                              06.00 – 01.00

 

Supply of alcohol – off the premises

 

Monday – Sunday                                              06.00 – 01.00

 

The Senior Licensing and Enforcement Officer referred to Appendix C within the case papers and highlighted the location of the premises on the map.

 

The application had been referred to the Panel for determination following receipt of a representation from Kent Police relating to the licensing objectives.

 

The applicant’s representative outlined the following points:

 

·        Having received details of the Police objections, the applicant was prepared to reduce the hours during which alcohol would be sold to 08.00 – 23.00 and the hours the premises would be open to 07.00 – 23.00. This earlier open time was considered necessary for the sale of newspapers.

·        The applicant was happy to comply with all the additional conditions suggested by the Police, should the licence be granted, with the exception of the condition stating that no high strength beers, lager or cider will be sold above 5.5% ABV. It was considered that such condition would affect sales of other items from the store.

·        Mr Uzum has been a licence holder operating in Gillingham since 2003 and there have been no issues previously with regard to sales to persons who are underage or intoxicated.

·        Mr Uzum’s two sons are both licence holders and will be assisting Mr Uzam in running the store.

·        Mr Uzum has recently re-qualified as a licence holder.

·        Mr Uzum will be operating Challenge 25 at the premises and will operate a refusals book. In addition, he will be vigilant as to ensuring that persons were not buying alcohol for consumption by persons who were underage or had previously been refused the sale of alcohol.

·        Mr Uzum was aware that shop was located in an area frequented by street drinkers and he would refuse to serve alcohol to such persons.

·        Mr Uzum would erect posters stating that photo ID would be required if a person was considered to look under the age of 25.

·        All staff employed to work at the store would be trained.

·        CCTV would be installed within the premises.

·        Mr Uzum would participate in the partnership scheme.

·        Mr Uzum did not consider that if granted the licence as applied for, it would lead to an increase in problems already being experienced in the area.

 

The following questions were then asked by the Police representative and Panel members:

 

·        How often staff would receive refresher training?

·        Who would be working in the shop?

·        How the Police could be reassured that Mr Uzam, as the applicant would be managing the shop taking into account the number of premises operated by the Uzum family and whether Mr Uzum would be attending the shop every day?

·        How Mr Uzum would prevent proxy sales and, in particular, when the proxy was an adult?

·        Why the applicant had a problem with the proposed condition restricting the sale of beer, lager and cider to that under 5.5% ABV?

·        Mr M Uzum was asked to outline the four licensing objectives, it being noted that he had only recently renewed his personal licence. As Mr Uzum had difficulty in answering this question, he was asked to explain the four grounds on which the Police could object to the licence application.

·        Mr G Uzum was also asked if he was aware of the four licensing objectives.

·        Following Mr G Uzum’s statement as to his understanding of the four licensing objectives, he was asked to clarify, who the licensing objectives were there to protect.

·        How Mr Uzum would prevent adults from buying alcohol and supplying it to street drinkers outside of the shop.

·        What knowledge Mr Uzum had about the area in which the shop was located in respect of the use of buildings in the vicinity of the shop and whether Mr Uzum considered it to be an area that received more police visits than the area where Mr Uzum had previously operated a shop?

·        How many additional staff would work in the shop, particularly taking into account the size of the shop and the hours that the shop would be open?

·        How many shops Mr Uzum would be operating?

·        Why Mr Uzum wished to have a licence that would permit the sale of alcohol at 8am?

·        In response to Mr Uzum’s comment that customers may wish to purchase alcohol early in the morning on their way to work, he was asked to explain what he would do if the customer was from the nearby hostel.

·        Mr Uzum was asked to explain what action he was required to take if he refused to serve alcohol to a customer.

·        Mr Uzum was asked to explain the Police concerns that the Uzum family did not have an understanding of the licensing objectives and appeared to play lip service to the conditions of their licences.

·        Mr Uzum was asked to confirm that there would always be at least 2 members of staff within the shop when it is open.

·        Mr Uzum was asked to confirm whether he agreed to the additional conditions suggested by the Police, should the licence be granted.

 

 

Mr Uzum and his son (Mr G Uzum) provided the following responses:

 

·        Staff would be shown how to operate the CCTV system and the Challenge 25 Scheme. (DC Angus commented that this did not really answer her question and added that the Police recommended that all staff receive refresher training every 6 months).

·        The shop would be run by Mr Uzum and his two sons but if necessary they would employ additional staff and would ensure that they were trained. Mr Uzum and his two sons were all licence holders.

·        Mr Uzum would be attending the shop every day.

·        To prevent proxy sales Mr Uzum would check the age of the customer, however he added that if the person buying the alcohol was an adult, if he was not aware that the alcohol was being passed onto another individual, there was little that he could do. Mr G Uzum stated that young persons would not come to the shop as they had knowledge of the Uzum family. He added that CCTV cameras would be located outside of the premises and that they would not risk their licence by selling alcohol to be consumed by underage persons.

·        The additional condition restricting the strength of alcohol sold at the shop was not a problem but, Mr Uzum had concerns that other stores in the locality would continue to sell higher strength alcohol and therefore if such items could not be stocked and sold at Best One, customers  would shop elsewhere and he could lose trade. Mr G Uzum stated that he was happy to accept this additional condition provided that other stores located within a 1 – 2 mile radius also had the same condition on their licence.

·        In response to the question relating to the four licensing objectives, the applicant (Mr M Uzum) commented that he understood that he should not sell to underage persons or persons who are intoxicated. He stated that he did understand the four licensing objectives but could not put them into English.

·        Mr G Uzum stated that his understanding of the four licensing objectives were that he should not sell alcohol to underage persons, alcohol should not be sold to persons that appeared to be intoxicated, customers who did not look over 25 should be challenged under the Challenge 25 Scheme and asked to supply ID and there should be CCTV at the shop.

·        Mr Uzum and his son stated that the four licensing objectives were there to protect the public and the community and persons who were already intoxicated.

·        Mr Uzum stated that if adults repeatedly came into the shop to buy alcohol which was then being passed onto street drinkers, he would recognize them and would refuse to serve them and record such refusal in the refusals book which could be inspected by the Police.

·        Mr Uzum advised that the shop was located in an area where there were other businesses and flats. Mr G Uzum stated that he was aware that the area was frequented by street drinkers but they would not be served alcohol. Mr G Uzum added that there was a Care Home nearby and also a hostel type accommodation that he thought may be for the homeless.

·        Mr Uzum advised that he could not confirm the numbers of staff that he would have in the shop as he did not yet know how busy the store would be.  Mr G Uzum stated that staffing levels would be considered once the level of trade had been assessed but he did add that with his father and brother, there would be three licence holders available. It was stressed that as this was to be a family store, there would be no specific shift patterns

·        Mr Uzum confirmed that Best One in High Street Chatham would be the only store that he would be responsible for operating as he had sold his other store to his brother.

·        To be able to sell alcohol at 8am would permit customers to purchase alcohol in the morning and put it in the fridge for consumption in the evening. In addition, it was considered that customers may not have time to shop in the evening. Mt Uzum did not consider that the availability of alcohol early in the morning would pose problems.

·        Mr G Uzum stated that if the customer was from the hostel, he did not see this as a problem as if they did not purchase alcohol from his shop, they would walk further down the road to another store to make their purchase.

·        Mr Uzum stated that if he refused to serve a customer he knew he was required to record this in a refusals book.

·        Mr Uzum commented upon an incident in the past involving Customs and Excise referred to by the Police representative and added that he would not repeat this again.

·        Mr Uzum confirmed that there would always be 2 members of staff in the store.

·        Mr Uzum confirmed that he was happy to accept the additional conditions suggested by the Police as they related to provision of CCTV, training of all staff and the maintenance of an auditable refusal/incident records book. In respect of the proposed condition relating to the restriction on the strength of beers, lager and cider, Mr Uzum was happy to accept this condition, provided such condition also applied to other licensed premises located within a mile radius from the location of Best One. Mr Uzum’s agent clarified that if it was considered necessary for this fourth condition to be approved for the licence to be  granted then the applicant would accept this condition. At this point the Chairman read out the proposed condition and asked Mr Uzum to confirm whether he understood and accepted the condition. Mr Uzum confirmed that he did understand the condition and that he would accept the condition provided such condition would also apply to any licensed premises (with the sale of consumption off the premises) within a one mile radius of his shop.

 

 

DC Angus then submitted the objections from Kent Police as follows:

 

·        The Police opposed the application on the basis of the geographical location of the premises. This had been a problem area for a number of years and was frequented by street drinkers as there were many places they could hide away and drink. In addition, it was an area where there was a high percentage of supported housing.

·        DC Angus informed the Panel that she was accompanied by a witness, Inspector C West who was responsible for policing this part of Medway.  She invited him to explain to the Panel the specific issues faced by the Police in this area of Chatham.

·        Inspector West provided the following information:

Ø      He had not previously met Mr Uzum but was excited about having a new business opening in this area of the High Street however, he had concerns regarding the prospect of having a premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in this location.

Ø      This area had been allocated a designated Policing Team to address specific problems of crime and anti social behaviour and it was notable that a high percentage of crime within the ward was alcohol related. Since September, a Task Group had been established with a response team aimed at specifically targeting street drinkers.

Ø      Local residents and businesses frequently reported problems with street drinkers being intoxicated and urinating and defecating in public and it was suspected that not all incidents were reported to the Police.

Ø      The Best One Store was located in an area with a high level of social deprivation. Within the locality of the shop were the following:

§         The Ashdown Medway Accommodation Trust in Chelmar Road. Many of the individuals assisted by the Trust have addictions to drugs and alcohol.

§         Regent House where many clients were vulnerable people with support needs especially in respect of budgeting their finances. Many of these individuals spent a proportion of their budget on alcohol.

§         Connexions operated by the Youth Trust

§         Temple of Light Church – a day nursery for disabled children

§         Spotlites – a youth theatre group

§         Kut O’ Chinese with groups involving young people

§         Sheltered housing for elderly people located opposite the shop

Ø      He advised that partner agencies were currently working with the voluntary sector and charities with a view to helping vulnerable people in this area access relevant support services. It was considered that to have a premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in this location of Chatham could potentially set back all the work undertaken to date.

Ø      The alcohol control zone in Chatham operated very close to the proximity of the Best One Store, however those staff patrolling the High Street only worked up to 9pm and therefore if would be difficult to police the area after 9pm.

Ø      The Police have had success in getting Anti Social Behaviour Orders for some individuals in the area and Section 27 dispersals have also been used. It was considered that to have another premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in the area would be setback.

Ø      The Police considered that should the licence be granted, the main source of customers for the purchase of alcohol would be the street drinkers.

 

DC Angus advised the Panel that another convenience store in the area had been experiencing problems with the sale of alcohol and, in consultation with the Police, the licensee had agreed to restrict the sale of beers, lager and cider to under 5.5% ABV.

 

She asked the Panel to consider the negative cumulative impact on crime and disorder in the area should this licence be granted.

 

The following questions were then put to the Police representative:

 

·        Mr G Uzum asked whether the Police agreed that there were other premises within the locality that sold alcohol for consumption off the premises?

·        Ms Silvester asked why the Police considered that the majority of the customers for alcohol at the premises would be street drinkers particularly as this would be a large convenience store and customers purchasing food shopping would not wish to go to another store for their alcohol purchases?

·        Ms Silvester asked for information as to the opening hours of other shops in the area?

·        A Panel member sought clarification as the types of problems that the Police faced in containing the problems with street drinkers?

·        A Panel member asked the Police to clarify their statement that they had concerns regarding the Uzum family and considered that they paid lip service to the conditions on their licences?

 

DC Angus responded with the following information:

 

·        Whilst there are other premises in the area licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, the street drinkers did not tend to go into the main area of the High Street as they knew they would be met by the Police High Street Team. Other premises tended to be located some distance from the hostel whereas the Best One Store was sited very close to the hostel and this was considered unsatisfactory.

·        The Police were concerned that Mr G Uzum gave the impression from his responses to questions that the sale of alcohol to street drinkers was not an issue on the basis that if they did not sell alcohol in Best One, the street drinkers would walk down the road and purchase their alcohol elsewhere.

·        The Police reiterated their concerns that they considered the majority of alcohol sales from the store would be to the street drinkers.

·        Inspector West supplied information as to the opening hours of another local off licence and the Tesco Store, Chatham.

·        Inspector West confirmed policing the area was made more difficult as the area contained many alleyways near the shops and individuals could also gain access onto the Great Lines.

·        It was confirmed that the Police had issues with the Uzum family in respect of the operation of their businesses and non compliance with licence conditions. Whilst this had not resulted in a review of the licences, formal written warnings had been issued. It was confirmed that since the letters had been issued, some issues had been resolved and some had not. Details of the issues were outlined.

 

 

 

 

Decision:

 

The Panel carefully considered the application for a new premises licence in respect of Best One 356 – 358 High Street Chatham Kent and decided to refuse the application.

 

In reaching this decision, the Panel had regard to the relevant guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and had regard to the significant evidence in relation to all forms of anti social behaviour and the nature and extent of the social problems in this part of Chatham. The Panel accepted that it was clear that there were significant numbers of vulnerable people living in close proximity to the premises.

 

Having heard this evidence, the Panel considered the likelihood of a negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives in the vicinity of the proposed premises.

 

Furthermore, the Panel was not confident that the applicant had the necessary expertise to run a licensed premises in this particularly challenging area and had a sufficient understanding and knowledge of the licensing objectives.