From the Whitstable Times and Tankerton Press, Saturday 12 April 1930.

Applications were made on behalf of Mr. F. J. Watts for continuation of the "off" beer, wines and spirits licence granted in respect of the “Green House,” Tankerton Circus. Tankerton, and on behalf of Mr. H. G. Hawkins, in respect of 98-100, Tankerton Road, Tankerton Circus.

Mr. H. Shanly appeared for Mr. Watts and Mr. B. Waddy for Mr. Hawkins.

It was decided to take both application together.

Mr. Shanly said they were opposed at the hearing of the application by the Justices but there was no opposition that day. There was no “off" licence at all within three quarters of a mile of Tankerton Circus, and there were only two licensed premises—the "Marine Hotel" and the "Tankerton Hotel"—within half a mile. Tankerton was really cut off from Whitstable by the railway line, and it was a growing neighbourhood on its own. Mr. Watts at present carried on a business under the ordinary excise licence. He (Mr. Shanly) was told that the population of Tankerton was 5,000 and that there were some 1,300 new houses. Mr. Watts' premises, apart from these of Mr. Hawkins were the only off-licence premises. Mr. Watts’ premises were very suitable and it was easy for them to be supervised. Mr. Watts was an experienced man as he held a licence from the Justices in connection with premises at Whitstable. He had held these for three years and had conducted them very satisfactorily. He served during the war and he was a man of very good character. Mrs. Watts assisted her husband in the business and they would be able to run both businesses between them. Mr. Watts had put the whole of his savings in the war into the two businesses. That there was a demand in the district for an off-licence was demonstrated by the fact that there was a petition with 624 signatures, and Mr. Watts had had numerous requests during the six months he had been at Tankerton to provide facilities. The Justices were not being asked to increase facilities for obtaining alcoholic liquor, but merely to grant permission to sell beer in single bottles instead of in quantities of three dozen. Mr. Watts’ premises were in the shopping centre of Tankerton, and when people went shopping they liked to get their wine or beer or whatever they required at the same time. A further advantage in having a Justices’ licence was that people would be able to obtain cider. At the previous hearing a number of residents were called who stated that the licence was required in the neighbourhood, and he thought the Justices were quite satisfied there was a need for the licence. Being an experienced man Mr. Watts was able to select wine for people and could give more time to this then could be given in the ordinary public house.

Later, Mr. Shanly said he was informed by the Clerk to the Justices that the licence was planted with a restriction to six bottles. He (Mr. Shanly) understood that at the hearing before the Justices willingness was expressed to have the restriction imposed, but the licence was granted without any such imposition being notified to Mr. Watts.

The Clerk said that in each ease it stated that the licence was granted on the undertaking that beer would not be sold in Quantities of less then six bottles.

Mr. Shanly said Mr. Watts was prepared to give that undertaking, and he asked the Justices if they desired to hear evidence.

Lord Harris said that not having heard anything about the application before it struck him that both applicants were confident of their respective premises which were exactly opposite. The Justices had recognised the legitimacy of the applications, but as there was no opposition he did not think they wanted to hear any more.

Mr. Waddy:- Your Lordship will not desire to hear me on behalf of Mr. Hawkins?

Lord Harris:- No.

Both licences were conformed.