Agenda item

The Panel is asked to consider and determine an application for a premises licence is respect of the above premises. 

Discussion:

The Panel was advised that this application for a premises licence in respect of Lonsdale Drive Newsagents, 288 Lonsdale Drive, Rainham, Kent ME8 9JU.

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 the Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager advised the application was for the following:

Hours for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises:

Monday to Sunday

06:00 - 23:00

The hours the premises are open to the public: 

Monday to Sunday

06:00 - 23:00

In accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 the Council had received a new application for a premises licence in respect of Lonsdale Drive Newsagents, 288 Lonsdale Drive, Rainham, Kent ME8 9JU

This application had been correctly advertised in the local press and notices displayed at the premises for the required timescale.

As stated at 1.2 on page 5 the application seeks to be licensed for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises.

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager advised the Panel that she had received written notification from the below list of objectors that Councillor O’Brien would be attending and speaking on their behalf in respect of their representations.

Mr and Mrs L McVeigh
Mrs F Delahay
Mr and Mrs S Cokayne
Mr and Mrs P Rutson

The following documents were included for consideration:

• Appendix A - pages 11 to 23 and site plan on page 24 - a copy of the original application submitted.
• Appendix B – pages 25 and 26 - amendments made to the application
• Appendix C – pages 27 to 42 - supporting documentation
• Appendix D – page 43 - location plan showing the approximate location of the application
• Appendix E – pages 45 to 82 - copies of representation received from members of the public

In accordance with section 9.14 of the Amended Guidance to the Licensing Act, Licensing Officers had been in discussion with Planning and confirmed the current planning position was that the premises did not have any planning control in place in relation to use or restriction on hours of opening.

This application was submitted for consideration because of the relevant representations received.

The Applicant’s representative informed the Panel that the application was for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises together with a corresponding extension in opening hours. The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel of the Applicant’s previous experience of owning and managing a large convenience store that had been open from 06:00 to 23:00 hours with, no reported problems, in Strood, Kent. The Applicant and her husband had sold the business in December 2013 and had purchased the Lonsdale Drive Newsagents with a view to completely refurbishing the property and converting it to a convenience store. It would continue to sell newspapers. The Applicant understood that the newsagent was a valuable asset to the local community. However, the business was struggling to make a profit and it had been decided to diversify in an effort to make the business viable. The request for opening at 06:00 hours was to take in the newsagent part of the business and the closing at 23:00 hours was to allow people to come and buy food and alcohol from the shop whenever they needed to. The Applicant and her husband would work full-time in the shop working, between them, 17 hours per day. There would also be two part-time staff (working 20 hours per week each) one of which already worked at the premises.

The Applicant’s representative advised that the Applicant had a thorough understanding of the licensing procedures and objectives. All staff would be fully trained, including training for refusal measures, and the training would take full account of the Council’s policies, procedures and good practice guides.

The Applicant’s representative informed the Panel that that it was her understanding that following discussions with the local Police that they had made no objections and she referred the Panel to Appendix B of the report. The Applicant had consulted with all nine required organisations during the application process and the Police had added to the conditions making them more specific and more robust. 

As a result of the refurbishment a brand new CCTV system would be installed with cameras inside and outside of the shop. In addition, new tills would have Challenge 25 prompts to assist staff with the procedure when faced with underage customers trying to buy alcohol.

The Applicant’s representative stated that a number of the objections raised were covered by other authorities such as the Police for crime and procedures to ensure the children were rendered unable to access alcohol. However there was a condition to require the Applicant to monitor the vicinity of the premises and clear up any litter. The Applicant’s representative stated that the Applicant completely understood residents’ concerns about the late opening of the shop and had offered a closing time of 22:00 hours to answer these concerns which was reasonable and standard in an area such as this.

The objectors and the Panel then asked a number of questions and the applicant responded as follows:

• Councillor O’Brien, Ward Councillor for Rainham Central, noted that mention had been made of the professional approach of the Applicant. However the Applicant’s name appeared differently on page 14 to that on pages 11 and 18. He did not feel this reflected a professional approach.

The Applicant’s representative gave her apologies for an administrative error by Licensing Matters in the completion of the application.

• An objector asked the Applicant whether she had considered opening the premises until 19:00 or 20:00 hours especially as the objectors considered that the late opening would cause late night disturbance to the residents

The Applicant’s representative stated that the business would not be viable unless it opened for longer hours especially taking into consideration the costs of the refurbishment.

• An objector stated he lived directly opposite the premises and asked if the Applicant’s representative would be managing the business for the Applicant.

The Applicant’s representative responded that she would not be managing the business but would continue to be available for legal and procedural advice.

• An objector asked how a person could contact the owners of the business or the responsible person if there was any trouble.

The objector was requested to call in at the shop as one of the owners would always be present during opening hours.

• An objector asked if the female staff members would be able to challenge underage males if they tried to buy alcohol.

The Applicant’s representative reiterated that the staff would be fully trained to deal with any issue that might arise.

• An objector asked if the Applicant was a member of the Safer Medway Partnership and if not, why was she not being part of local initiatives?

The Applicant’s representative stated that there was no requirement for the Applicant to be a member of this partnership. However, the Applicant had advised that this would come in time and she was more than happy to do so.

The Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager added that this was not an enforceable matter but was desirable. However, she reported that not every area in Medway had sufficient radio coverage.

• An objector asked if the Applicant’s representative had read the Statement of Licensing on the Council’s website.

The Applicant’s representative advised that she had not but that she was a licensing expert in her own right.

• An objector questioned why the Applicant had not consulted local residents on the proposed changes.

The Applicant’s representative responded that this was the case.

• An objector asked why the Applicant needed to have extended hours on Sundays when even supermarkets closed early.

The Applicant’s representative responded that the hours were as applied for.

• An objector asked if the increase in hours of opening would cause more noise nuisance to the residents.

In response the Applicant’s representative stated there would be no increase in noise nuisance allied to the increase in opening hours as the premises would be well managed.

• An objector questioned the range of the area that would be checked by the Applicant for litter.

The Applicant’s representative advised the licensing law states that any premises should be responsible for the vicinity. However the word vicinity was not defined and it would be a matter for the Applicant to decide.

• An objector felt that the plan of the area around the shop included in the papers failed to point out the public green spaces in area of which there was quite a few including areas in Sutherland Gardens, Sunningdale Close, Kenilworth Drive, Barleycorn Drive and Foxborough Wood. Foxborough Wood was a known area for the young to gather to drink, take drugs and to set fires. Would the Applicant patrol all of these areas?

In response the Applicant’s representative stated that the Applicant was not responsible for those individuals who littered the area. It was also unreasonable to expect the Applicant to be responsible for the whole area.

• An objector felt the answers from the Applicant’s representative showed that she was passing responsibility for issues to others.

The Applicant’s representative advised that licensing was a partnership with people such as the Police who dealt with crime and vandalism. It was the license holder’s job to ensure that the business was run in accordance with licensing guidelines.

• An objector stated that the premises had previously been a video hire shop and there had been problems with youngsters congregating in front of the shop and causing a nuisance. How would the Applicant deal with the problem of older people buying alcohol for youngsters?

The Applicant’s representative stated that this was called proxy buying and the staff would be trained to spot the signs of people buying alcohol for those who are underaged.

• An objector advised that the off licence at Parkwood opened until 22:00 hours and others closed between 18:00 and 20:00 hours. There was a Tesco store a couple of minutes drive down the road which was open 24 hours day. Was there a need for this business to open until 23:00 hours?

The Applicant’s representative responded that the Applicant was entitled to apply for these business hours.

• An objector asked for the projected increase in footfall that the extended hours would bring to the business.

The response from the Applicant’s representative was that this calculation had not been undertaken so she did not know.

• The increased levels of littering was a concern for one objector and he had been called names when he had asked the person who had dropped the litter to pick it up. It was also asked that the Applicant confirm the offer of closing at 22:00 hours.

The Applicant’s representative reiterated that the Applicant was not responsible for individuals littering the area. She confirmed that the Applicant was happy to close the premises at 22:00 hours.

• A Panel Member asked the Applicant to give her view of the role of the appropriate person or licence holder as she needed to be confident that the Applicant understood.

The Applicant advised that she had previously lived in Kent for 5 years and therefore was familiar with the area. The Applicant stated that she had run her previous business for two years which had been sold last December. The business had had some small troubles which had been dealt with correctly, or if she had been unable, the Police had been called to resolve the issue. There had also been more commercial competition around the last business she had managed.

• A Panel Member asked how underage drinking was dealt with.

The Applicant stated that appropriate identification documents were requested such as a driving license, a passport or a photocard that showed the person’s date of birth.

• A Panel Member asked that as the designated person, was the Applicant confident that she could train other people.

The Applicant responded that she was confident that she was able to train people and training would be carried out every three moths. The till prompt system would also help.

• A Panel Member stated that on page 24 of the report the fire extinguisher was shown on the shop layout plan but the siting of the CCTV monitors was not. Keeping in mind that CCTV footage might have to be looked at, the siting of the monitors was very important.

The Applicant’s representative advised that was no requirement for the licensing plan to include this information. The Police had visited the premises and would advise on CCTV monitor placement. The Applicant intended to liaise with the Police Crime Prevention Officer. She also drew attention to the condition that the Police had requested with regard to CCTV.

• A Panel Member requested details of how many people would be working on the premises.

The Applicant’s representative reiterated that the Applicant and her husband would both work full time and there would be two part-time employees who would both work 20 hours per week. The Applicant and her family did not currently live in the area but intended to move closer to the business if the application was approved.

• A Panel Member asked the applicant to list the Licensing Objectives.

The Applicant mentioned CCTV, the Challenge 25 initiative and tobacco. The Chairman also mentioned protection of children from harm and public nuisance.

• The Chairman of the Panel asked if there would be any advertising boards on the grassed area outside the shop.

The Applicant replied that there would not be any boards on the grassed area outside the shop. An objector informed the Panel that the current business did use these boards.

The Objectors put forward their reasons for the objection to the application as follows:

Councillor O’Brien, Ward Member for Rainham Central, speaking on behalf of the Mr and Mrs L McVeigh, Mrs F Delahay, Mr and Mrs S Cokayne and Mr and Mrs P Rutson, informed the Panel of his objections. This included that the premises was a small unit in a quiet residential area. Five years ago there had been an issue with anti-social behaviour in the alley behind Barleycorn Drive which had resulted in the formation of the Barleycorn Pact. This had resulted in a solution to these issues. The premises was serviced by a layby that could accommodate three vehicles. There was also a hairdressers and a tanning shop in this small parade so parking was at a premium and there had previously been public safety issues and noise nuisance at this busy junction. The application would blight the lives of residents. There were ample alcohol outlets in the area and the one at Parkwood had plenty of parking. This application would attract the nuisance of additional cars to the area. It was feared that the antisocial behaviour issues would return. It was felt that 06:00 hrs was too early to open. The route was a main pedestrian route for children traveling to school. If the Panel was minded to ignore the blight this application would cause residents then it was hoped they would consider using the present opening hours.

A local resident, Mr Hunt, stated that an increase in opening hours and the sale of alcohol was wholly inappropriate and would cause a major traffic issues at a busy junction. There had been a significant traffic incident at the junction last September which had been caused by inconsiderate parking. If there was an increase in opening hours the parking situation would get worse. The area was quiet and densely populated and noise nuisance would increase. There were many elderly residents in the area. The newsagents was a great local asset as it was being operated at present, closing at 8pm and early closing on Sundays. The application was wholly inappropriate as shown by the level of feeling in 90 objections and the Applicant had made no attempt to contact local residents.

Another local resident, Mr Cockar, reiterated the problems with the former video shop in the parade and youngsters hanging around on the grass area. With the long Sunday opening hours the premises would be the only source of alcohol in the area. He felt that the Applicant should clear all litter generated from the premises. He did not feel the application was appropriate as the Applicant did not live on site. The application did not list the proportion of alcohol to be held in the shop to other products and this was an off-licence through the back door. The objector had been repeatedly advised that an application could not be refused unless it contravenes the Council’s Licensing Objectives. The Licensing Act 2003 stated that an application could be rejected if it was considered that it would promote crime. He also referred to the Members’ Licensing Code of Good Practice. However, local residents and the wider communities would be adversely affected by the granting of inappropriate applications.

Another local resident, Mr Hargan, felt that the needs of a business, not viable without the sale of alcohol or extended opening hours, should not be put before those of local residents. This was a change of use which was not viable without the long opening hours and the change should therefore not be imposed on the residents of this quiet area.

Mr Coad, another local resident, advised that nobody had mentioned that Lonsdale Drive was a bus route which also had a traffic calming island which made the passage at the junction very narrow. This was exacerbated if deliveries were made to the shops or to houses. If long hours were such a wonderful idea why had previous owners not done it. The objector lived close to the shop and had experienced littering of his garden and young people did not care.

When invited by the Chairman, the Applicant’s representative stated that she did not have any questions for the objectors.

The Panel asked the following question of the objectors:

• What time did the premises shut at present and what did it sell.

One of the objectors responded that it shut at 20:00 hours and was a convenience store that also sold newspapers.

Councillor O’Brien summed up that the application had been incorrectly completed and there had been no local consultation on the proposals. He felt that no one would be personally responsible for the premises and that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person in relation to this application.

The Applicant’s representative stated that although the Applicant had struggled to express herself at the Hearing, she had been trained to the highest level (Level 2) and was aware of the Licensing Objectives. The Applicant wanted to move to the area with her family and to be part of the community. The consultation had been carried out as legally required and she understood the concerns of the residents who did not like change and wanted to keep things the same. She advised that the job of the Panel was to balance the needs of the objectors, the needs of the business and the requirements of the Licensing Act. Whether the licensing objectives would be upheld was the only consideration.

There was no evidence to support the comment that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person. The evidence was that the Applicant had top level training and flawless previous experience and she was entirely proper. There was also no evidence that anything would change with the extension on opening hours from 20:00 hours to 22:00 hours.  There would be robust procedures in place to ensure the Licensing Objectives would be upheld. The business would not be viable if the business had to close at 20:00 hours.

She asked the Panel to consider the legal terms in case law of Thwaites in that there must be evidence. Speculation was not enough. She reminded the Panel that the other responsible authorities had not made any representations and this should weigh heavily on the Panel’s considerations. Licenses could be granted and there was an effective power of review. The legal sense of the application was entirely supported that there was no reason for refusal. The Applicant had demonstrated she does care about the objectors as she had offered a reduction in closing time to 22:00 hours and she hoped that residents would see that there is no reason to fear the change.

A Panel Member asked the Applicant the proportion of alcohol to other products in the premises and the answer was the usual 15%.

Decision Background:

The Panel had considered an application for a premises licence for licensable activity – ‘off-sale’ of alcohol for the hours of 06:00 hours to 23:00 hours every day of the week.

Evidence heard by the Panel from the Applicant:

• The hours of operation being applied for were amended to 22:00 hours.
• The husband and wife (the Applicant) team would be supported by two part-time individuals.
• The level of experience that the applicant had in running premises that had been licensed.
• The 17 hours a day that the husband and wife would work.
• The various policies the Applicant has in respect of the responsible sale of alcohol, including the use of till prompts.
• The provision of robust training to staff.

Evidence heard by the Panel from the Objectors:

• Live evidence from the Ward Councillor and local residents
• The Panel gave appropriate weight to the substantial number of written representations received.
• Evidence in relation to the local area being substantially a residential area.
• The previous existence of anti-social behaviour which had reduced more recently.
• Congregation of individuals on the green area in front of the premises.
• Problems caused by deliveries to the area of the premises.

The Panel did not give weight to:

• The evidence given of littering, parking issues and road conditions.

Licensing Objectives:

The Panel heard representations regarding all four Licensing Objectives but felt that only the “Prevention of Public Nuisance” was made out.

Relevant Considerations:

• The Panel considered the statutory Code of Guidance and the Local Statement of Policy.
• The Panel also sought legal advice where needed.

The Panel was charged to consider the application in light of the counter-evidence and to then apply the law to ensure that the four Licensing Objectives were being promoted. As the premises is situated in a heavily populated residential area, with green public space directly in front of it, the Panel considered the Prevention of Public Nuisance with the weight it deserved.

Decision:

(a)               That the Panel grant the Premises Licence, but as permitted by law, the Panel impose conditions, as it considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

(b)               The Panel considered that it had heard sufficient evidence that the combination of the green public space with the position of the alcohol amounts to a honey pot in that area.

(c)               The congregation of individuals could amount to public nuisance as evidenced by the objectors. Not all congregation is public nuisance, but in the evening there is a greater risk of public nuisance.

(d)               The Panel therefore reduced the hours of opening to 06:00 hours to 20:00 hours Monday to Sunday and the supply of alcohol would also be 06:00 hours to 20:00 hours Monday to Sunday.

(e)               The Panel also agreed that a condition that commercial deliveries, collections and storage/disposal of waste and recyclables in external areas be restricted to between 08:00 hours and 18:00 hours be added to the Licence.