Public health report in Kent town finds 'public urination and faeces in flowerbeds'

Balmoral Road in Gillingham is barely wide enough for two cars to pass
-Credit:David Anstiss


A supermarket in a Kent town has been told it cannot sell booze after police said there are too many issues with alcohol-related crime in the area. The Royal Supermarket in Balmoral Road, Gillingham, applied for a licence to sell alcohol seven days a week, but councillors sided with police and public health officers who said it was not exceptional enough to overcome local issues.

Kent Police and Medway Council’s public health team objected to the application as the shop is located within a cumulative impact policy (CIP) area which has problems with alcohol-related crime, including anti-social behaviour and public nuisance. The public health report outlined significant problems with littering associated with alcohol and an inspection of the area found evidence of public urination and faeces found in flowerbeds.

At the licencing hearing panel on January 21, Benoy Sebastian, the applicant, was represented by Oisin Daly of Absolute Licence Solutions Ltd who said Mr Sebastian had first made an application to sell alcohol from the shop in December 2020 when he first bought the premises. Since that application had been rejected, Mr Daly argued, Mr Sebastian has gained four years experience of running the shop and understood the alcohol-related challenges in the area.

ADVERTISEMENT

READ MORE: Family-run Kent baby goods shop goes into liquidation with some customers wanting their money back

READ MORE: Plans give glimpse at how new Kent Tesco store could look as part of 64 apartment complex

Along with other concessions, Mr Daly said Mr Sebastian and his staff would undergo regular and extensive training on how to sell alcohol in a way which would not worsen alcohol-related issues. Mr Daly said: “There’s a stereotypical street drinker, but there’s also those nuances in terms of what they may be looking for.

“One of these is the condition around multipack sales, which is not to get people to buy more alcohol but to deter those who have only a few pennies in their pocket spending the last of what they have on alcohol. All nuances like these will be included in the training, and the training documents will be translated into Mr Sebastian’s native language of Malayalam so he fully understands.”

The Royal Supermarket in Balmoral Road, Gillingham
The Royal Supermarket in Balmoral Road, Gillingham -Credit:Google

Mr Daly also said if the application was approved he would continue working with Mr Sebastian, with on-going training to ensure the licencing objectives were not undermined. PC Andre Smuts, on behalf of Kent Police recognised concessions made in the application, such as only selling multi-packs of less than 5.5% ABV and not selling spirit miniatures, but said this was not enough to overcome the prevailing rules which aim to reduce identified problems.

ADVERTISEMENT

He said: “Kent Police are concerned the granting of another off-licence in this immediate area could only make alcohol even more widely available and is likely to attract further street drinkers and anti-social behaviour.

“It is the opinion of Kent Police that the applicant has not demonstrated how supplying more alcohol to the people of Gillingham will not have any impact on the existing issues – for this reason we respectfully request this application be rejected.” Claire Hurcum, health improvement programme manager at Medway Council represented the authority’s public health team and challenged the suggestion the limited strength of the alcohol would be an effective deterrent.

She said: “In the evidence pack submitted from public health, a vast majority of the images were litter of low-strength beers and ciders. There’s also evidence to say just reducing the strength of alcohol sold will have very little impact on instances of street drinking.”

However, the panel ultimately decided to refuse the application. Chair of the licencing panel, Cllr Hazel Browne (Lab) said: “We do not consider anything exceptional about this application. Although the application is good, and we acknowledge the applicant has identified the location is within a CIP area and has suggested conditions to address the concerns, it is our view it doesn’t reach the high test of exceptional.

“Therefore we reject the application.”