A new town centre Tesco branch has been refused permission to sell alcohol near a railway station despite protestations at a Co-op being able to do so round the corner.

Medway Council turned down the supermarket giant’s bid to sell booze from its new store planned at Pullman House in Corporation Street, Rochester.

Its licensing panel said the store, beside the railway station, had not sufficiently proven how it could meet the licensing objectives of its cumulative impact policy (CIP).

The policy was introduced to tackle alcohol-related problems in the town centre and make it more difficult for new licence applicants to be accepted.

Jeremy Bark, Tesco’s legal representative at the hearing, was joined by Simon Coomber, operations manager for the retailer, Hardish Purewal, a licensing manager for the chain and Mark Halton of MJH Licensing Consultants.

Objecting to the application were Barbara Murray from Medway Council’s public health team, Sarah Tranter, representing the Rochester City Centre Forum and Steven Hutchins, who lives near to the upcoming store.

An application for a licence to sell alcohol at this store was previously due to be considered by Medway Council on January 21.

However, the application was withdrawn before the meeting as police were an objector.

Mr Bark made the case for the supermarket giant, saying the new version had been adapted, reducing the hours when alcohol would be sold from 6am to midnight seven days a week to from 10am to 9pm, except on Fridays and Saturdays when it would reduce further to from 10am to 8pm.

He said police had now retracted its objection and did not have a problem with the proposals, even though the site falls within the CIP area and so requires greater consideration.

He also said the store would serve the same need as the Co-op shop around the corner on the Rochester Riverside estate and there was no suggestion that retailer had caused significant problems.

However, objectors and councillors did point out, and it was accepted by the applicants, the Co-op did not fall within the CIP area as Tesco does.

Mr Bark added: “As part of preparing, we took a look at the Co-op, it’s not a million miles away from the railway station, and there is not a suggestion that it causes any problems.

“We are incredibly confident we can uphold the licensing objectives, so are the police, so are environmental health and trading standards.

“If they had any concerns, because of the CIP area, then they would have objected and they simply do not.”

He also challenged submissions from objectors about the scale of street drinking problems and issues associated with littering in the nearby area as Mr Halton had performed five visits for several hours at different times of the day between February 13 and 16.

Mr Halton said he did witness some street drinking and litter, but this was rare, and the homeless people he encountered were not drinking or drunk.

However objectors and councillors did make the point the days when the visits were made were particularly cold, which would affect instances, and the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) was in effect, meaning homeless people were given shelter.

Mr Bark made clear Tesco has comprehensive processes for ensuring it upholds licensing objectives and, because the Kent Police were not objecting it had confidence too.

He continued: “The work we put in, both with the changes to this application and nationally across all our stores, is why we are confident and the police aren’t objecting.

“I hear exactly what you are saying, there are issues we are aware of and take seriously and therefore if we didn’t think we could manage them properly we wouldn’t be sitting here today.

“We have many stores which operate in more challenging circumstances and we operate them well; there are areas where we look and see issues which are so significant we don’t apply for a store.

“It’s not a case of we will take any site, we won’t. There is a very thorough and detailed process.”

He also said, if everything went to schedule, the shop would open in June or July with 15 to 20 members of staff, six on shift at a time.

A security guard would also be employed for the first eight weeks and then the role would be reviewed to determine whether further security or less is necessary.

Barbara Murray represented Medway Council’s public health team, which objected to the application on the grounds the area already has a number of off-licences and alcohol-related problems, such as instances of domestic violence.

Sarah Tranter, speaking on behalf of the Rochester City Centre Forum, said Rochester was a popular destination for visitors and a great place to live but suffered from issues worsened by the easy availability of alcohol.

She added: “It’s a place for professional beggars to come and those who don’t have regard for the area and what locals have worked so hard to put in place - flowers will get ripped out and general damage.

“Several years ago council officers, the police and public health saw that it was necessary to put in the CIP.

“They saw the trends of crime and disorder and the effect drunken behaviour and all it entails has on the local community, making it less attractive to visitors and residents.

“The CIP is there for a reason and it is working, but the Tesco will have an impact - not from responsible drinkers but from those who get off the trains and buses and will buy a four-pack and start drinking before they cross the road.”

She added the other off-licences were independent businesses and were invested in their local community, and worked together, while Tesco is a national chain.

Steven Hutchins questioned why it was so necessary for the shop to sell alcohol in addition to regular groceries.

He said: “Why is it so important Tesco has alcohol at this venue? What is this actually going to bring to our community?

“Will another licence enhance the area? I don’t think it will. I regularly commute and see glasses, bottles, alcohol paraphernalia that supports everything Public Health say.

“There is nothing, as a condition, that will allow, in my mind, for a premises licence to be granted there.”

He also criticised Tesco’s lack of outreach into the community as part of its consultation prior to making the application.

“I wrote specifically in my objection “Please contact me, I am more than willing to liase and consult” and you brushed me off and decided not to listen or talk to me.”

However, Mr Bark said this was not a fair characterisation, saying the supermarket’s experience in the past had been some public consultation events had made residents feel pressured into not speaking as freely and so the chain preferred to make the application first, allow objections, and react accordingly.

The hearing was held on April 15, but a decision was not published until April 23.

The panel ultimately deciding to refuse the application.

In their response, they said it did not believe Tesco had done enough to overcome the additional requirements of the CIP area and although it would have protocols in place, this would not prevent negative impacts.