Purpose

Application for a New Premises Application
under the Licensing Act 2003

Content

Licensing panel
hearing held virtually via Teams on Friday 15th November 2024 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, relevant representations and documents submitted by the
applicant 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 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 burger
shop with late night refreshment from Sunday to Thursday 23:00 to
02:00 and Friday to Saturday 23:00 to 03:00. After midnight it is
proposed that the operation will be for collection and delivery
only with no eating on the premises.
 
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. Having considered the documentation
submitted by the applicant the police were further concerned that
he did not understand the policy concerns or appreciate the
challenges involved in this area or in the late-night economy in
general. Although recommending refusal the police had put forward a
set of conditions to mitigate some risk. There was some confusion
as to which conditions the applicant had agreed to but the
condition to operate as delivery only after midnight and thus not
allow customers for takeaways was rejected by the applicant as he
wanted customers to be able to collect food from the premises. The
licensing authority was also concerned about the application in
policy terms and while acknowledging the effort the applicant had
made had concerns about his understanding and lack of direct
experience of the late-night economy.
 
The applicant had submitted detailed
documentation seeking to address the concerns raised by the
responsible authorities and the policy implications. Emphasis was
placed on the fact this premises did not sell alcohol and that crime was mainly associated with
premises selling alcohol and his was a small restaurant with no
alcohol. He believed the need for his premises was relevant and
that he had demonstrated that with the measures he proposed there
would be no associated crime and disorder and that it was
exceptional. Other similar licences had been granted and already
existed in the area. He would only be open for collection and
delivery after midnight. He was willing to agree to appropriate
security measures but would not attract high numbers of people.
 
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 panel and other parties were able to
question the applicant about his intended operation and the
measures proposed. In response to questions, it was not clear how
the collection aspect would work or how customers would place
orders. The applicant mentioned a potential window hatch or awning
outside the shop and that taxis could order online and wait in the
loading bays. He could not be responsible for congregation
generally on the street only within his premises and within his
control. He was willing to have an SIA door staff on duty. The
police asked about the relevance of challenge 25 which he had
proposed in the context of late-night refreshment, and it was clear
by the response that there was a lack of understanding of the
measure. The licensing authority asked about his relevant
experience, and it was established that he had experience of
running premises outside the UK but no relevant local experience.
The applicant placed much emphasis on other similar premises which
had been granted licences most of which pre-dated the cumulative
impact policy. However, although it may seem unfair, the panel
cannot take previously granted licences into account, it must focus
on the merits of this application. The panel considered that the
applicant did not appreciate or properly understand some of the
conditions he was agreeing to which was illustrated in his written
submission and in

response to questioning especially on the
issue of SIA security. The panel is also concerned that the
applicant does not have a proper understanding of the nature of
cumulative impact in our policy which is about the negative
cumulative effect of a concentration of licensed premises in an
area which leads to problems of crime and disorder and public
nuisance over and above those linked to an individual premises. He
also misunderstood the concept of ‘need’ which is not a
relevant licensing concern.
Overall, the panel shares the concerns of the
police and licensing authority and does not have confidence in the
ability of the applicant to operate such a licence without issue in
this challenging area. While appreciating the efforts made by the
applicant in his application there was a demonstrable lack of
understanding of the licensing regime, and policy as it applied to
this application. There are no exceptional circumstances shown and
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.
 
The minutes of the panel will be available on
the Council’s website under the rubric ‘Your
Council’.
 
Appeal Rights
(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing
Act 2003)
 
1.   The
applicant may appeal against the decision to refuse the
licence.
 
All appeals must be made to Magistrate’s
Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of deemed delivery
of this letter. Delivery will be deemed to have been affected on
the second
working day after posting.