Purpose

Application for a New Premises Licence under
the Licensing Act 2003

Content

RE: Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification
of the Determination of Panel.
 

Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Monday 16th
June 2025 in respect of the application for a premises licence in
respect of premises known as Station Grill, 62 Queens Road,
Brighton, BN1 3XD
 
The Panel has read all
the papers including the report, and relevant representations and
has listened to all the submissions made today. The panel has had
regard to the Statutory Guidance and the Statement of Licensing
Policy.
 
This is an application
for a new premises licence within the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ)
and therefore subject to the special policy on cumulative impact as
set out in the Statement of Licensing Policy.
 
Our policy states that
applications for new premises licences will be refused following
relevant representations unless the applicant has demonstrated that
their application will have no negative cumulative impact. The
special policy will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances. The policy applies to all new premises licences for
example pubs, restaurants and take-away establishments.
 
However, the policy is
not absolute. Upon receipt of a relevant representation, the
licensing authority will always consider the circumstances of each
case and whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify
departing from its special policy in the light of the individual
circumstances of the case. If an application is unlikely to
negatively add to the cumulative impact of an area, it may be
granted. The impact can be expected to be different for premises
with different styles and characteristics.
 
The application is for
a restaurant and takeaway shop with late night refreshment from
23:00 to 03:00 every day. A similar application was previously
submitted in October last year which was refused by the panel. The
applicant has appealed that decision and has also submitted this
further application.
 
Two representations
were received from Sussex Police and the Licensing authority. The
representations had concerns regarding the prevention of crime and
disorder, public nuisance and cumulative impact. The police had
concerns about the location of these premises which was a busy road
and main thoroughfare from the station to the city centre with a
high number of incidents of crime and disorder. Offering food for
takeaway for the hours applied for was likely to lead to an
increase in incidents and hinder dispersal. The police had
witnessed this first hand during a night shift when crowds were
gathering at a late-night refreshment premises. The police were
further concerned that the applicant still did not understand the
policy concerns or fully understand licensing responsibilities and
they had little confidence in him. They cited the example of issues
with display of the Blue Notice. Although recommending refusal the
police had put forward a set of conditions to mitigate some risk.
The licensing authority was also concerned about the application in
policy terms and whether there were any exceptional circumstances
to depart from the policy.
 
The applicant had
submitted a lengthy written submission just prior to the hearing.
It was not formally accepted due to its late submission, but he was
able to speak to it and did so. He made the following points:
 

•        
He was happy to accept the police conditions but would leave it to
the panel to decide when he could do collections and deliveries
from.

•        
He needed to stay open longer to avoid throwing food away and cater
for demand.

•        
He had completed a door supervisor course and passed it and would
soon receive his badge. He had gained relevant experience by
working in a late-night kebab shop on West Street and had a
certificate to verify this, so the circumstances of this
application had changed.

•        
The exceptional circumstances to depart from policy were strong
operational management and security measures, the fact this was a
small restaurant with no alcohol, there was a high demand for his
services, and it would contribute to the local economy.

•        
Other similar applications had been granted in the area, and it was
discrimination against new businesses.

•        
The police visit demonstrated the high demand for his services
and also that he complied with the
closing time.

•        
He had customer support for his application.

•        
He did not need any further planning permission.

•        
Human rights were relevant as was fair treatment.

•        
If this application was granted he would
withdraw his appeal.

•        
He disputed that the Blue Notice was not on display but had
accepted extension of the notice period.
 
The panel and police
were able to question the applicant and did so especially around
staffing and his role as door supervisor and the security risk
assessment.
 
The panel has
carefully considered this application on its merits and is mindful
of the location of the premises in Queens Road within the CIZ which
experiences high levels of crime and disorder and is a key
late-night thoroughfare. The police representation illustrated
this. Ultimately, the panel do not consider that the applicant has
shown any exceptional circumstances to enable departure from the
cumulative impact policy. The panel did not believe that the
applicant properly appreciated or understood what the policy meant
in terms of cumulative impact. He emphasised need as being relevant
which is not a relevant licensing consideration. Overall, the panel
shares the police concerns that the applicant lacks understanding
of the licensing regime and his responsibilities. The panel
considered there was some confusion shown by the applicant relating
to the separate role of an SIA door supervisor and other members of
staff and feared that there may be a blurring of roles. The panel
were also concerned about the Blue Notice display issues. The panel
lacks confidence in the applicant and in the absence of any
exceptional circumstances, the panel believes granting the
application is likely to add to problems of cumulative impact and
undermine the licensing objectives. The panel is therefore refusing
this application.