The Licensing Act Sub Committee met to consider an application for a new premises licence for Sahara City, 38 Cliff Road, Newquay, TR7 2ND. The application was for a grant of a premises licence, but following representations from the Fire Authority, and discussion of the location of the premises within the Newquay Cumulative Impact Zone Area¹, the application was refused.

Sahara City, 38 Cliff Road, Newquay, TR7 2ND

The Sub Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for Sahara City, 38 Cliff Road, Newquay from Mr Vasant Maru. The application was for the provision of live and recorded music, late night refreshment, and the sale of alcohol for consumption on and off the premises.

The report before the committee noted that representations had been received from two Responsible Authorities² and one Other Person³. The application had been deferred from a previous hearing on 10 September 2025.

Mr Maru, the applicant, told the committee that he had held the licence for the premises in the past, and had over 40 years of experience running licensed properties in Newquay. He stated that he would comply with all the licence requirements.

The Watch Manager B Protection, representing the Fire Authority, objected to the application, raising concerns that they had not received adequate information from Mr Maru regarding fire safety measures at the premises. Specifically, they stated that they had emailed the Maru Group requesting information including:

• a copy of the fire risk assessment
• a plan of the building
• the evacuation plan
• confirmation as to whether the fire alarm would automatically mute the music
• emergency lighting details
• the number and type of fire extinguishers
• occupancy figures

The Watch Manager B Protection told the committee that the only information received had been the location of fire extinguishers. They also noted that the building was of mixed use, with a residential flat on the second floor, which added a residential sleeping risk. They had asked to visit the premises to carry out a fire safety audit, but the date offered was refused as Mr Maru was not available.

Two Other Persons attended the meeting to object to the application, raising concerns that:

• a more robust Challenge 25⁴ policy was required
• off sales needed to be in sealed containers

Mr Maru accepted the need for a more robust Challenge 25 policy, and that off sales would need to be in sealed containers.

In his final submission, Mr Maru stated that he would comply with all requirements of the licence agreement, and that he wanted a clear conscience regarding the safety of customers and staff. He also stated that the flat had a separate entrance/exit, and that there was a fire assessment in place. He said that the Fire Officer visit was missed due to health issues at the time.

The committee noted that the applicant had agreed conditions with Devon and Cornwall Police and the Senior Environmental Protection Officer Tracey Constance, and the representations from Newquay Town Council.

However, the committee also noted the representations from the Fire Authority, and felt that the points raised were important and relevant to the application. They felt that if the licence was granted without these points being answered to the satisfaction of the Fire Authority, and any required works being undertaken, then the Public Safety licensing objective would be undermined.

The committee noted that the Fire Safety Inspector had emailed the applicant raising a number of matters on 28 July 2025, and had made subsequent efforts to contact the applicant without success. The committee felt that a responsible applicant would have dealt with the issues raised and responded to the Fire Authority, and were concerned that this was not the case with this applicant.

Members further noted that the application fell within the Newquay Cumulative Impact Zone Area, and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the grant of the application would not have a negative impact on the Licensing Objectives in respect of the Cumulative Impact Zone, in particular in relation to Public Safety.

The committee concluded that, on balance, due to the Public Safety licensing objective being undermined, it was reasonable and proportionate to refuse the application.