The Licensing Panel were asked to consider an application for a new premises licence for Northfleet Store, 6 Stonebridge Road, Northfleet, DA11 9DR.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and went through the process he intended to follow. He explained that once everyone had made their submissions and all questions had been answered, the hearing would close to all parties except for the Panel, the legal advisor to the Panel and the Committee Services Officer (for minutes writing purposes only) for the panel to consider their decision.

The Licensing Barrister noted that the Ward Councillor submission was made by Cllr Jo Hart only, with no presentation being submitted during the 28 day consultation period from Cllr Allsion Williams; he requested that Cllr Williams not address the Panel on that basis. After seeking Legal advice, the Chair agreed and asked that Cllr Williams observe the meeting only.

Following a question by the Chair, the original decision made at the meeting on Wednesday, 09 April 2025 was being appealed but it was cheaper and quicker for all parties to agree to grant the licence at a Panel meeting which was why another application had been submitted; the Licensing Barrister advised that he was seeking to persuade the Panel to grant the Premises License at his meeting and avoid progressing at an appeal.

The Panel were informed that even though an application for a Premises License at the premises was originally discussed at a Licensing Panel on Wednesday, 09 April 2025, this was a new application, and the decision and evidence presented at the previous meeting should not be taken into consideration at this Licensing Panel. 

The Assistant Licensing Manager gave a brief overview of the application and background information to the Panel. 

The application was for the sale by retail of alcohol, applied as follows:

Sunday to Thursday

• 08:00am to 22:00pm

Friday and Saturday

• 08:00am to 23:00pm

During the 28 day consultation period, representations were received from Environmental Protection, the Community Safety Unit, five members of the public and a Ward Councillor; the applicant had also agreed additional conditions with Licensing and Kent Police who both raised no objections to the premises licence. The details of those representations and additional conditions could be found in Appendices B-F of the report.

The Licensing Barrister was invited to address the Panel and summarised why the applicant should be granted the new premise licence including giving a detailed response as to how the premises would meet each of the licensing objectives, outlined the measures that were in place to stop alcohol being sold outside the agreed times, the notable lack of objections from the Police and Licensing as the responsible authority, a similar premises being run without issue a few doors up and then addressed each objection which had been presented to the Panel in turn.

The Chair opened the Panel to allow questions from all parties present and reminded the Panel that the questions should only pertain to the application and not include statements.

Following Members and objectors (officers from CSU and Environmental Protection) questions, the below responses were received from the Licensing Barrister:

• There was no evidence presented which suggested that people living in low income and deprived areas were more prone to causing anti-social behaviour or that there was a street drinker issue in the area. The statistics provide by the Community Safety Officer were too general; they did not specify the area in which the premises was situated providing a snapshot of the whole area, and the statistics were not broken down so that it could be seen which cases were filled by alcohol issues. The statistics were taken from Kent Police and had not been gathered by Council officers; the Licensing Barrister reminded the Panel that the Police had offered no objections to the application  
• There hadn’t been any complaints received from the neighbouring properties
• The amount of competition in the local area and the need for another ‘corner shop’ type premises was not relevant to the application. The Licensing Barrister added that even though competition was not a factor to consider, he explained that the additional premises would increase the choice in the area which could offer better value to residents. For example, a neighbouring local shop a few properties up had a minimum card limit whereas this premises would have no card limit meaning residents were not be forced to spend more money to get their shopping which would help low income residents 
• The eating habits of local residents was not relevant to the application and the resident’s capacity to buy junk food at the premises should not factor into the decision for granting a premises licence as public health was not a licensing objective
• The shop would be run under the ‘Premier’ franchise and had thousands of products for sale; alcohol made up only a small portion of what was on offer
• The premises had not committed to an opening time yet; it may open up at 06:00am or open in line with the proposed licensable hours of 08:00am; that matter would be decided at a later date
• There were multiple ways in which people would be stopped from buying alcohol outside the licensable hours: all staff would be trained to an acceptable standard, the till system would be programmed to the licensable hours which meant that it wouldn’t accept any alcohol sales before 08:00am, there would be signs placed in the shop declaring the licensable hours, the beer fridges would have blinds on them and all spirits would be kept behind the counter
• Alcohol was allowed to be visible outside of the licensable hours; there was no law stating that it couldn’t as long as it wasn’t sold outside of those hours
• The delivery of all non-alcohol items to the shop wasn’t relevant to the decision but the premises owner would be considerate of his neighbours and wanted them to shop in his store
• The premises would be selling both, packs of alcohol and individual cans; there were no reports of street drinking in the area and the Police would have raised an objection if there was. A number of conditions had been agreed with the Police to address their concerns; the trained staff would not sell to street drinkers or intoxicated people and anyone causing a nuisance would be banned from the premises and the Police called if the problem was severe enough
• ARKA would be responsible for providing staff with face to face training and Licensing Connect was a digital platform that would provide all online training; the platform would also provide staff with refusal registers, absent books, posters and all other services that could be translated into any language. Licensing Connect was new and came into effect from March 2025 but had been rolled out nationally
• The training was around licensing law and being a responsible retailer; it would include how to deal with intoxicated customers, any conflict and how to properly record a refusal. The training would be conducted every twelve months for all staff members

The objectors, who had made representations, were invited to address the Panel and outline why the premises licence should be refused; representations speaking against the application were carried out in the following order:

·        Environmental Protection Team

·        Community Safety Unit

·        Public Representation

The Licensing Barrister questioned each of the objectors in the order they spoke.

In response to the Licensing Barristers questions, the Senior Environmental Health Technician explained that:

• The Environmental Health Team used a system called Uniform to record ASB complaints received via email/phone
• The nearby chicken shop, kebab shop and convenience store had all been checked against the system and it was confirmed that no complaints had been received about any of the premises in the last few years; however, the Senior Environmental Health Officer added that the Council were not notified of all cases received by Kent Police
• Following questioning, Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that he had not viewed the Kent Police database and the statistics that had saw were the ones made publicly available from Kent Police and were for the general area, not that specific premises
• Even though no complaints had been received, the Senior Environmental Health Officer advised that it was his job to speculate, and he felt that the premises was not in a good location and would be prone to ASB which would affect residents

In response to the Licensing Barristers questions, the Community Safety Officer explained that:

·        The sale of vapes, tobacco and food was harmful to the local community and another shop would exacerbate the issue. The Licensing Barrister responded that the sale of vapes, tobacco and food classed as unhealthy did not factor into the decision of the Panel; the premises would be opening as a shop regardless of the decision and it was up to residents what they spent their money on 

·        The Community Safety Unit were in the process of merging their in house app with the Uniform system; currently when ASB reports were received they were placed in the app. The Licensing Barrister advised that no evidence of complaints from the app had been submitted to the Panel and could not be factored into the decision

·        There was one related complaint a number of years ago but that was to do with drugs not alcohol; the Community Safety Officer added that they relied on the public to report issues which could be difficult and sometimes they went straight to the Police instead of the Council and that data was not accessed by officers. Following questioning, the Community Safety Officer accepted that Kent Police were the main source of information regarding crime and disorder

In response to the Licensing Barristers questions, the public representative explained that:

• His family owned the nearby shop ‘Northfleet Food & Wine’ and he was the Designated Premises Supervisor for the premises
• The public representative agreed with the Licensing Barristers assertions that he ran his shop well and he promoted the licensing objectives; however, he added that there were some issues with ASB in and around his shop and they had been reported to Kent Police on several occasions. The Licensing Barrister responded that Kent Police would have been aware of those reported ASB instances and had raised no objections to the application. He added that it was fair to say that if Mr Singh was able to run his shop without any major issues, then this premises, a few doors down from Mr Singhs shop, could also be run without any major issues

The Chair allowed the Licensing Barrister, the Senior Environmental Health Technician, the Community Safety Officer and the public representative to sum up their arguments to the Panel.

Referencing established case law, the Licensing Barrister advised that any representation that been submitted, but the person wasn’t present and therefore could not be questioned, should be given less weight when Members made their decision.

The meeting adjourned at 12:28pm to deliberate.

The meeting re-convened at 13:15pm. 

Determination

The Chair advised that the Panel had very carefully considered the evidence before them which included the written and oral representation from the applicant and his representatives, the GBC Licensing officer,  the GBC Environmental Health officer, the GBC Community Safety Officer, the submission from the Ward Councillor and Members of the public. 

The panel , in reaching their decision had upheld the licencing objectives and taken into consideration relevant case law and the statutory guidance.

The Panel had decided to grant the premises licence application as per the conditions proposed in the application and the associated condition agreed by the licensing authority and any by the police.

The Sale of Alcohol was permitted on Sunday to Thursday  from 8am to 10pm and on Friday/Saturday from 8am to 11pm.