Contact your Parish Council


Agenda item

Application for a new Premise Licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Piragathi Limited, 2 - 3 Appledore Court, Hildenborough Crescent, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 0PA

Minutes:

The persons participating in the hearing were identified as follows:

 

Chairman – Councillor Brindle

Committee Members – Councillors English and Joy

Legal Advisor – Helen Ward

Democratic Services Officer – Debbie Snook

Senior Licensing Officer – Lorraine Neale

Applicant – Kajanan Gnanasegaram (remotely)

Applicant’s Representative – Gill Sherratt (remotely)

 

There were no representatives of responsible authorities or other interested parties in attendance.

 

Written objections had been received from Mrs Laura Green who was unable to attend the hearing.

 

The Sub-Committee agreed to proceed in the absence of the objector whilst having regard to her written representations.

 

All parties confirmed that they were aware of the Sub-Committee hearing procedure and that they had each received a copy of the hearing procedure document.

 

The Sub-Committee Members confirmed that they had pre-read the papers regarding the hearing.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer outlined the application and the objections received from Mrs Green.  It was noted that:

 

·  The application had been made by Piragathi Limited for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises 2-3 Appledore Court, Hildenborough Crescent, Maidstone, Kent. The licensable activity applied for was the sale and supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m. Monday-Sunday with the same opening days and hours.

 

·  No objections had been received from the responsible authorities in respect of the application.

 

·  One objection had been received from another party on the grounds of all four licensing objectives (Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, Public Nuisance and Protection of Children from Harm).

 

·  The concerns were that:

 

  Granting a licence at these premises would increase the level of anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood.  The premises could encourage people who buy alcohol late to remain in the area because of a local nearby park.  They could potentially use the park to consume their alcohol and ultimately cause disturbance.  There was also the potential for criminal activity, criminal damage, theft, burglary, assault and drug taking.

 

The store could also increase the volume of traffic to the area and to a later time which would increase the danger for residents and children crossing the road.  It would also be detrimental to residents with regard to traffic noise continuing later into the evening and increased vehicle parking causing nuisance to residents.

 

Ms Sherratt, the applicant’s representative, then made her opening statement.

 

Ms Sherrat explained that:

 

·  Mr Gnanasegaram was the sole director of the company (Piragathi Limited) and had significant experience in selling alcohol.  He had worked at Maidstone Food and Wine for over four years and had held a personal licence for over two years.  He had never encountered any problems with alcohol sales.

 

·  After being an employee for all this time, Mr Gnanasegaram had decided to open his own business and invest in his future, which was the reason for the application.  He was investing over £40,000 in the premises and had chosen to partner up with Premier/Booker.  His store would be a Premier convenience store.  The premises consisted of two empty units that were being combined to create a modern convenience store for local people.  All types of convenience products would be sold including fresh and frozen food and toiletries, with lottery tickets and pay point etc.  Alcohol would form approximately 10-15% of the goods on sale and it was not the intended focus of the business.

 

·  The investment would result in the installation of high spec equipment such as CCTV with remote access and 31-day recordings, tills with prompts regarding the ‘Challenge 25’ policy and the register of refusals of alcohol, and security alarms.

 

·  The alcohol would be located near to the tills so that it could be supervised easily.

 

·  The applicant would be partnering with Premier/Booker and would have support from them.  The applicant would be the Designated Premises Supervisor.  Once the store was open, he would leave his other job to take on the premises full-time with a full-time assistant manager who also held a personal licence and had sold alcohol for over two years.  If the applicant was not on the premises, the other personal licence holder would be there.  There might be a need for another part-time member of staff, but staffing would be kept under review for some time.

 

·  In terms of training, this would be undertaken through Licensing Matters online e-learning and refreshed.  Other policies and procedures would include ‘Challenge 25’, retention at the premises of a register of refusals of alcohol, and the forms of identification that would be accepted.

 

·  In terms of consultation, none of the responsible authorities had raised concerns, including the Police.  The points raised by the one concerned resident were speculative.  In terms of litter, bins would be provided outside the premises.

 

In response to questions:

 

The applicant’s representative confirmed that:

 

·  Responsible staff would be on site when the premises were open for the sale of alcohol to make sure that it was sold correctly.

 

·  There was no objection to the amendment of the condition relating to staff training to require that all staff employed at the premises will receive training on the Licensing Act 2003, including input on preventing underage sales, preventing sales of alcohol to people who are drunk and any other relevant matters prior to making sales of alcohol, rather than on first appointment.

 

·  In terms of the applicant’s experience, he had been and was still working in the same kind of business (Maidstone Food and Wine).  He would leave that job should the licence be granted and his business open.

 

The Senior Licensing Officer advised the Sub-Committee that she was not aware of any existing anti-social behaviour issues associated with other premises in the area that already had licences to sell alcohol.

 

The applicant indicated that he had nothing further to add.

 

In making her closing statement, the applicant’s representative reiterated the position of the responsible authorities and indicated that she had nothing further to add other than this was a robust application.

 

The Sub-Committee retired into private session to deliberate with the Legal Advisor present.

 

The hearing was adjourned from 2.25 p.m. to 2.40 p.m.

 

The Sub-Committee returned, and the Legal Advisor announced that:

 

The Sub-Committee welcomed the information provided by the applicant’s representative in particular in respect of staff training and presence at the premises.  The Sub-Committee carefully considered the concerns raised by the interested party in respect of people taking alcohol from the premises to the nearby playground and they felt that staff training would go a long way to prevent this.  On that basis, the decision of the Sub-Committee was to grant the application as sought, with an amendment to the condition which has been offered in respect of staff training so that it reads:

 

Prior to making sales of alcohol, all staff employed at the premises will receive training on the Licensing Act 2003 including input on preventing underage sales, preventing sales of alcohol to people who are drunk and any other relevant matters. Training shall be regularly refreshed at no less than annual intervals. The training must be recorded and be accessible on the premises and made available for inspection upon request of a Police Officer or an authorised officer of the licensing authority or (in the case of online training) within 48 hours.

 

It was confirmed that a written decision notice would be provided and that there was a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Sub-Committee’s decision and reasons be as set out within the Notification of Determination attached as Appendix A to these Minutes.

 

The hearing closed at 2.45 p.m.

 

Supporting documents: