Purpose

Application for a New Premises Licence under
the Licensing Act 2003

Content

 
Licensing Panel
hearing held on Tuesday 20 August 2024 virtually in respect of the
application for a Late Night Refreshment Licence for Zaf’ron, 99 North Road, Brighton, BN1 1YE
 
The panel has read all the papers including
the report and relevant representations and listened to the
submissions put forward at the hearing.  The panel has also
had regard to the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy
(SOLP) and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 statutory
guidance.
 
The application is for a new Late Night
Refreshment Licence authorising the sale of hot food and drink to
members of the public between 23.00 and 03.00 hours every
day. 
 
The premises are situated within the
Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). This is an area where the council has
determined that the concentration of licensed premises in an area
of the city centre is causing problems of crime and disorder and
public nuisance, and that an approach to “Cumulative
Impact” is necessary as part of its SOLP. That approach
provides that applications for new or varied licences in the CIA
which are likely to add to the existing Cumulative Impact will be
refused following relevant representations. The presumption of
refusal can be rebutted if the applicant can show that their
application will have no negative Cumulative Impact.
 
 
A “matrix” approach to licensing
decisions has been adopted by the council in its SOLP. It sets out
a framework of what the licensing authority would like to see
within its area and gives an indication of the likelihood of
success to any applicant.  The matrix suggests that Late Night
Refreshment Licences will not be granted in the CIA.
 
Two representations were received from
responsible authorities, the Police and Licensing Authority setting
out concerns relating to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder,
Public Safety, the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Cumulative
Impact. 
 
The Police representative amplified the Police
objection. He provided details of the closing time of other
licensed premises in the vicinity and stressed that 3am was
significantly later.  There were no
other late night takeaways in the immediate vicinity. Late night
trading will impact on residents, both through delivery vehicle
movements and by attracting people to the area who would otherwise
not be there.   Based on their
interactions to date with the applicant, the Police had concerns
about management’s attitude.
 
The Licensing Authority representative also
expanded upon their objection, and shared the Police’s
concerns about the management of the premises.
 
 
We heard from the sole director of the
applicant company. In
their presentation, and in answer to our questions we were told
that:
 

The application for extended
hours was in response to a demand from regular customers.
The company did not employ
sufficient staff to operate as a restaurant until 3am. The plan was
to operate as a take away and provide a delivery service. He would
use not only his employees for this, but also third party delivery
operators, such as Uber and Deliveroo. He did not wish to pursue
extended hours at Christmas and New Year.
He only became a director of the
company in January 2024, and therefore could not comment on the
unauthorised trading in November 2023.
With regard to the alleged
unauthorised trading in August 2024, that was on Pride weekend. The
premises had been busy, and at the time of the Police visit, staff
were cooking food for themselves and not the public.
He was not in a position to
change the trading hours on Facebook. That was controlled by
previous directors of the company.
There had been no complaints from
local residents about the operation of the premises, nor any
reported crime. 
The director was an experienced
SIA registered door supervisor, capable of de-escalating problem
behaviour, and of training staff to do the same.  He intended to be at the premises as much as
possible, and would have an agreement with a security company if he
was not.

 
 
The panel has considered this application on
its merits.  We note the policy
objections to the application – both the CIA and Matrix, but
we are particularly struck by the fact that there are no other
late- night takeaways in the immediate area, which is somewhat
unusual. No residents have objected to the application, and apart
from the out of hours trading, no crime has been associated with
the premises. The application does not include the sale of alcohol.
We found the director’s explanation of the late hours for the
premises on Facebook credible, together with his explanation for
the apparent breach of the licensing hours over the Pride
weekend.  The measures proposed in the
operating schedule, appearing as Appendix A in the agenda on page
25, propose a number of measures to address any public nuisance and
crime and disorder concerns. They include a Door Supervisor, CCTV
and signs requesting patrons to respect the needs of neighbours. We
do not believe that the application will add to the issues
associated with cumulative impact.
 
The application is therefore granted
with:- 
i)              
A condition limiting the operation of the premises between 23.00
and 03.00 every day to takeaway and deliveries only. 
ii)             
conditions consistent with the operating schedule.
 
The Panel believes that the above conditions
are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
 
The minutes of the panel will be available on
the Council’s website under the rubric ‘Council and
Democracy’. A webcast of the meeting is also available.
 
Appeal Rights
(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing
Act 2003)
 
The applicant may appeal against the decision
to impose conditions on the licence. 
 
Any person who made a relevant representation
who desires to contend that the licence ought not to have been
granted, or that on granting the licence, the licensing authority
ought to have imposed different or additional conditions, may
appeal against the decision.
 
All appeals must be made to Magistrates’
Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of notification of
this decision letter. A fee is payable upon lodging an appeal.