Agenda item - Sainsbury's Supermarket, 147-148 Western Road, Brighton

Report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety (copy attached).

126.1      The Panel considered a report of the Assistant Director of Public Safety regarding an application for a new premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 for Sainsbury’s Supermarket, 147-148 Western Road, Brighton, BN1 2DA.

126.2      A solicitor for the Premises Licence Holder and representatives of Sainsbury’s Supermarket attended the hearing to speak in favour of the new application. Councillor Kitcat attended to hearing as Ward Councillor to speak on behalf of Mrs Paskins, a local resident.

126.3      The Senior Environmental Health Officer began his submission by stating that the application was for a retail premises to include the sale of alcohol on-site. A premises licence for this had been issued in 2007, but a significant extension and redesign of the premises to include 30% greater floor area meant that new plans and a new Premises Licence needed to be submitted for approval. Three letters of representation had been received referring to Public Nuisance and Crime and Disorder. The Senior Environmental Health Officer stated that the premises was in the Cumulative Impact Area where the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate there would be no negative cumulative impact on the granting of the licence.

126.4      The Chairman asked if the premises already had a licence and what the operating times were for this. The Senior Environmental Health Officer stated that it was for the same times as already granted, and the Solicitor for Sainsbury’s stated that because the shop floor was increasing by around 30% this necessitated new plans to be drawn up and therefore a new licence required for these plans.

126.5      The Chairman asked if the interested party and the applicant had any questions of the Senior Environmental Health Officer and they stated they had none.

126.6      Councillor Kitcat began his representation by stating that he was objecting on behalf of three residents in the area. He stated that this was a significant change to the store and an increase in sales area for alcohol. He noted that the premises was in the Cumulative Impact Area and felt that the scale of the application was inappropriate.

                Councillor Kitcat stated recent problems in the area, including a murder, and felt that increasing the supply of alcohol would contribute to the situation getting worse. There were already disturbances in the area due to inebriated people and the granting of this application would continue a negative trend. Councillor Kitcat also highlighted Public Safety issues and stated that the NHS was overwhelmed with admissions for alcohol abuse, and this was a consideration the Panel should take into account. He urged the Panel to reject the application.

126.7      Councillor Marsh asked whether Sainsbury’s could still sell alcohol if the new licence was refused. The Senior Environmental Health Officer stated that because the plans for the shop were changing, a new licence based on those plans was necessary.

126.8      Councillor Lepper asked whether Councillor Kitcat had received any complaints from residents about alcohol sales from Sainsbury’s. Councillor Kitcat confirmed that the residents he spoke to felt the noise and disturbance they experienced had increased due to the opening of Sainsbury’s.

126.9      Councillor Lepper asked why the residents Councillor Kitcat was representing felt that there would be an increased nuisance when the hours of opening were remaining the same. Councillor Kitcat explained that the residents felt that due to the increase in size, the shop would act as a beacon for those looking for late night alcohol.

126.10    The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s asked Councillor Kitcat whether the recent murder in the area was in any way linked to Sainsbury’s, and Councillor Kitcat confirmed that it was not.

126.11    The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s asked Councillor Kitcat whether any buskers had been witnessed in operation outside of Sainsbury’s, and Councillor Kitcat confirmed that he had not witnessed any.

126.12    The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s asked Councillor Kitcat if he was aware that the hours of sale would remain the same for the new licence and Councillor Kitcat replied that he was.

126.13    The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s began his representation by stating that a new application had been submitted because of recent store improvements and a substantial change to layout. There was only a 2% increase in alcohol sales envisaged, but the visibility for staff to monitor the area would be greatly increased.

                The Solicitor noted that the application was in the Cumulative Impact Area, but this was something that the store could not change. He noted that the application had been sent to the Police Licensing Officer for approval before being submitted to the Licensing Authority and the Police had no objections to the new application as several conditions had been agreed including CCTV and a Challenge 21 policy which would ensure that the four licensing objectives were upheld.

                The Solicitor to Sainsbury’s felt that the applicant had done their best to take into account the Cumulative Impact Area and were disappointed that the application had come to a Panel hearing. He recognised the concerns of residents, but felt that Sainsbury’s were not responsible for these, and the suggestion that the store would be open later than it’s current licence was not true.

In the opinion of the Solicitor, the Cumulative Impact Area should not restrict positive improvements to premises that already had a licence in the area, and he did not feel this was the intention of the policy. He stated that Sainsbury’s had offered consultation with the residents but this had not been taken up. Finally, the Solicitor stated that this was a very minor overall change to the licence and he urged the panel to accept the application.

126.14    The Chairman asked whether any incidents had occurred at the store related to Crime and Disorder or Public Nuisance. The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s confirmed that a test purchase operation had recently been carried out at the store which they had not failed and a refusals book was kept to demonstrate that staff were challenging and refusing customers where necessary.

126.15    Councillor Marsh asked what the increase would be for alcohol floor space under the new application and the Solicitor for Sainsbury’s confirmed that it would be proportionately less than previously.

126.16    Councillor Lepper asked why the licence application was for 24 hours for the sale of alcohol when the store intended to close at 22:00. The Solicitor for Sainsbury’s stated that this was for business flexibility and all Sainsbury’s stores would take this approach, whether they intended to use the hours on the licence or not.

126.17    Councillor Kitcat asked if the pricing policy would change at the store and the Solicitor confirmed it would not.

126.18    Councillor Kitcat asked what would happen to the store if the licence was refused. The Solicitor replied that this would make the store economically unviable and it would have to close.

126.19    Councillor Kitcat asked the Solicitor to confirm that alcohol sales were given the greatest importance of all the produce sold at the store because it was sold in such high quantities. The Solicitor confirmed that alcohol sales were very important because the store was a convenience store which aimed to have all main items of grocery sales under one roof. If the store could not achieve this then it was felt that customers would go elsewhere.

126.20    The Senior Environmental Health Officer began his final submission and stated that any conditions placed on the licence needed to be clear and enforceable, and necessary to uphold the four licensing objectives and the Cumulative Impact Policy.

126.21    Councillor Kitcat began his final submission and stated that all the residents concerns were valid and needed to be considered by the Panel before they made their final decision.

126.22    The Solicitor to Sainsbury’s stated that the hours on the licence had not changed with the new application and the Police had not stated an objection. The problems in the area could not be attributed to Sainsbury’s and the Cumulative Impact policy should not be used as a mechanism to restrict development of businesses in the area that were already trading with a licence.

126.23    RESOLVED – that the application for a new Premises Licence is granted with the conditions as agreed with Sussex Police.