Agenda item

The persons participating at the hearing were identified as follows:

Chairman – Councillor Ziggy Trzebinksi

Sub-Committee Member – Councillor Patrick Coates

Sub-Committee Member – Couillor Denise Joy

Senior Licensing Officer – Lorraine Neale

Legal Advisor – Helen Ward

Democratic Services Officer – Oliviya Parfitt

The Applicant and their Representative – EngarshalSinnarasa and Frank Fender.

Interested Parties – Cllr Val Springett & Graham Barrett

The Chairman explained that:

The Sub-Committee would allow all parties to put their case fully and make full submission within a reasonable time frame.

The procedure would take the form of a discussion led by the Sub-Committee and they would usually permit cross-examination within a reasonable timeframe.

Any person attending the hearing who behaved in a disruptive manner may be directed to leave the hearing by the Sub-Committee (including temporarily) after which, such person may submit to the Sub-Committee any information which that person would have been entitled to give orally had the person not been required to leave the meeting. If this was not possible, they may be permitted to speak at the Chairman’s invitation.

The Senior Licensing Officer outlined the application and introduced the applicant Engarshal Sinnarasa. The Senior Licensing officer stated that members had been asked to consider the application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2002 for the Green Convenience Store, 4 The Parade. The Green, Bearsted, Kent, M14 4DN.

The Senior Licensing Officer also stated that the application was made for the sale and supply of alcohol of sales only Monday to Sunday 06:00 to 23: 00 hours. There were no comments received from any of the responsible authorities.

The applicant’s representative gave their opening statement on behalf of the application and explained that:

• Between the years 2004 – 2009 the applicant worked at Budgens supermarket which was licensed to sell alcohol.
• Between 2009 – 2010, the applicant worked in a petrol station which was licensed to sell alcohol.
• In February 2010, the applicant took over a convenience store which was licensed to sell alcohol between 6 am to 11 pm.
• In 2014, the applicant took over another convenience store in Bearsted on Ashford Road and held the premises license.
• In 2019, the applicant took over another shop and became the premises license holder.

The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had never caused any concerns for any of the authorities through the operation of his other licensed premises and had an excellent track record. The measures proposed to meet the licensing objectives, such as ‘Challenge 25’, were outlined. It was reiterated that no representations had been made by the responsible authorities, with no evidence provided to support the concerns expressed by the interested parties’ representations.

The applicant’s representative stated that the premises was unlikely to remain open until 11p.m., particularly during the winter where the likely closing time would be around 8-9 p.m., but that this would provide the flexibility needed to sell alcohol later into the evening.

In response, the panel enquired about the applicants’ other premises and whether they were near any village greens or recreational grounds. The applicant responded that the post office in Loose has a playground called St Georges which is in front of the Loose Infant School.

The interested party (Councillor Val Springett) was invited to make their case and in doing so mentioned that generally the application was welcomed, as the shop had been very old-fashioned and outdated for a very long time.

However, the application had divided opinion given the late opening hours, which might encourage young individuals to gather on Bearsted Green and consume alcohol late into the evening. The area was generally a quiet area, although the other licensed premises in the area generated noise, with the junction near the premises as incredibly busy.  The sub-committee was being asked to consider adjusting the operating hours as applied for, as opposed to rejecting the application.

The applicant responded by stating that customers would be asked not to litter the green or cause disruption or noise late at night, as otherwise they wouldn’t continue to be served. 

In response to a question from the sub-committee, the applicant stated that they would expect the premises to be open for an extra hour in the summer months, with additional staff members on site.

The interested party Graham J Barrett was invited to make their case and stated that in the last 18 months there had been an increase in vandalism in the surrounding area, with the local road network to the premises as being busy and dangerous. It was felt that the premises staff could be vulnerable post 7 p.m. due to the antisocial behaviour in the area.

In response to the comments on the road network, the Legal Advisor stated that no weight could be given to the comments unless it related to the licensing objectives.

In response to the interested party’s comments, the applicant’s representative stated that the applicant would maintain a working relationship with the local ward Member and that they would not give a definitive premises closing time, as this could be included in the license and reduce the flexibility available to the applicant.

The applicant’s representative summarised their case by stating that the applicant had a good track record of running convenience stores and asked the committee to attach considerable weight to the fact that no other responsible authority had made a representation. In saying that, the representative asked that the committee to grant as applied for.

The interested parties summarised their case by requesting that the applicant liaise with the local Ward Member and community.

The chairman advised that the sub-committee would retire for deliberation with the legal advisor present. The meeting was adjourned between 11.08 a.m. to 11.45 a.m.

Following the Sub-Committee’s return, the legal advisor outlined a proposed condition that had been discussed in closed session; that a second member of staff be on duty if the shop was open beyond 7 pm. The interested parties agreed with this condition and stated that it would also improve the safety of the shop and the staff inside.

The applicant’s representative strongly objected to the proposed condition and responded by stating that the applicant had one member of staff working at all his other stores up until closing time. However, the condition would be acceptable if the time proposed was amended to 9.30 p.m. as the applicant would rarely be open beyond that time in the first instance.

The Sub-Committee adjourned again between 12 p.m. And 12:15 p.m. to deliberate the proposed condition.

The Sub-Committee returned, and the Chairman stated that having considered the report, evidence provided, representations made and the relevant legislation and guidance, the decision made was to grant the application as applied for with the addition of one condition; that where the premises is open for the sale of alcohol beyond 9:30 pm a minimum of two staff would be on duty on the premises until close. The reasons contributing to the decision were outlined in further detail. 

It was confirmed that a written decision notice would be provided. Parties were reminded of the right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.

The hearing closed at 12.16 p.m.

RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee’s decision and reasons be provided within the Notice of Determination attached as an Appendix to the minutes.