Purpose

Application for a Variation of a Premises
Licence under the Licensing Act 2003

Content

Licensing Panel
(Licensing Act 2003 Functions) - Notification of the Determination
of Panel.
Licensing panel
hearing held on Thursday 25th January 2024 virtually via
Teams in respect of the application for a variation of a premises
licence in respect of premises known as Mona Lisa, 89 St
James’s Street, Brighton, BN2 1TP.
 
The Panel has considered all the papers
including the report and relevant representations and listened to
the submissions made today. The application is situated within the
cumulative impact zone (CIZ). Our policy states that applications
for variations which are likely to add to the existing cumulative
impact will be refused following relevant representations. This
presumption can be rebutted by the applicant if they can show that
their application will have no negative cumulative impact.
 
This special policy can only be overridden in
exceptional circumstances. However, the policy is not absolute. The
panel must consider the individual circumstances and merits of the
application. If an application is unlikely to add to the cumulative
impact of the area, it may be granted.
The application seeks to add sale of alcohol
on the premises to the existing late night refreshment activity
from 12:00 to 00:00 every day. Two representations against the
application have been made by the police, and licensing authority.
The representations had concerns regarding the prevention of crime
and disorder, public nuisance and cumulative impact.
 
The police were concerned about the location
of the premises in the CIZ and St James’s street in
particular which has a problem profile and high levels of crime and
disorder. Split licence venues can also cause people confusion and
create problems in managing the change from restaurant to late
night takeaway. Their concern was furthered by a history of the
premises breaching their current licence on two occasions, on
1st January 2024 and during Pride 2022. The conditions
offered, while welcomed, did not go far enough and did not address
the policy concerns.
 
The licensing authority also had concerns
about the location of the premises within theCIZ and explained the
breach of the licence during Pride 2022 when the premises was open
and trading when the licence had been suspended due to non-payment
of fees and had not been transferred. Due to the previous breaches
the licensing authority did not have confidence in the applicant to
operate this type of licence and comply with
conditions. 

Both responsible authorities recommended
refusal of the application. The applicant was not present at the
hearing and his agent Deyra Teke spoke on his behalf in support of
the application. There had been consultation with the licensing
authority and conditions proposed. The applicant was aware of the
concerns regarding location and in terms of the split licence, the
alcohol would not be on display and only for on sales only visible
to those who were seated. The applicant was willing to take on
board changes and conditions such as no sale of alcohol to the
outside seating area. The sale of alcohol would end when the
restaurant closed each day. In terms of previous breaches there was
some misunderstanding about the completion of the transfer
application and the breach on 1st January was explained
as being 15 minutes over for a special customer. Staff training
would reinforce conditions.
 
The panel asked detailed questions of the
agent in order to try and clarify and confirm the manner in which
it was intended that the business would operate around its limited
space and staff as well as the visibility of both the outside and
inside seating area.
 
The panel has considered this application on
its individual merits and is mindful of the location within a
particularly challenging part of the CIZ. The panel was concerned
that the application was not well enough thought out in the context
of the location and our policy. The panel regretted that the
applicant was not present at the hearing which was not helpful. The
agent had answered questions in an open and honest manner, but the
panel felt that there was insufficient assurance given about how to
manage potential incidents and the challenges of a split licence of
this nature.
The panel shared the police concerns in this
respect. Furthermore, it was considered that there were not enough
measures to mitigate the real risk in this location. There was also
concern about limited visibility within the premises. The previous
breaches, though not the overriding consideration, also did not
give the panel confidence that the applicant would abide by the
conditions and terms of the licence and shared the police and
licensing authority concerns in this respect. Overall, the panel
considered that granting the application as it stood would be
likely to add to problems of cumulative impact and undermine the
licensing objectives. The application was therefore refused.
The minutes of the panel will be available on
the Council’s web-site under the rubric ‘Council and
Democracy’.
 
Appeal Rights
(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing
Act 2003)
 
1.   The
applicant may appeal against the decision to reject the
application.
 
All appeals must be made to Magistrate’s
Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of deemed
delivery of this letter. A fee is payable on
the lodging of an appeal.
Delivery will be deemed to have been effected
on the second working day after posting.