Purpose

Application for a New Premises Licence under
the Licensing Act 2003

Content

 
Licensing Act 2003
– Licensing Panel Hearing Notification of the
Determination
 
Licensing panel
hearing held via Teams on Monday 3rd February 2025 in respect of
the application for a new premises licence in respect of premises
known as Cardamon, 119 St James’ Street, Brighton, BN1
2HA.
 
The panel has considered the report with the
relevant representations made. It has listened carefully to all the
points and submissions made at the hearing. In reaching its
decision, it has had due regard to the Council’s Statement of
Licensing Policy (SOLP) and section 182 guidance.
 
The application is for a new premises licence,
for an Indian restaurant authorising the sale of alcohol on the
premises every day 10:00 to 00:00 hours and late night refreshment
23:00 to 00:00. The application is 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.
 
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.
 
Representations were received from Sussex
Police, and the Licensing Authority. The representations raised the
licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, the
protection of children from harm, public safety and cumulative
impact.
 
There are unusual circumstances relating to
this application in that a premises licence has been in existence
previously but has lapsed twice necessitating the current
application.
 
Both the police and licensing authority have
no confidence in the applicant to be able to adhere to conditions
on the licence or promote the licensing objectives. This was due to
their previous dealings with the premises and licence holder which
are detailed in their representations. In relation to a second
follow up visit in December 2024 when breaches of conditions were
still in evidence the police issued a final warning letter. It then
came light that the applicant’s premises licence company had
been dissolved some months previously and so the licence had
lapsed. The hours applied for were also contrary to the current
planning permitted hours. Because of their concerns both the police
and licensing asked the panel to refuse the application.
 
The applicant’s agent addressed the
panel and made the following submissions. The situation with the
company was an administrative oversight and his client gained
nothing from it and should not be criticised for this, and but for
this oversight the licence would be in place today. There has been
a licence at this site since 2005.This should constitute
exceptional circumstances. Mr Islam was not involved at the initial
time of police involvement and only really since December 2023. He
is now the business owner and does all the front of house work.
Licensing was new to Mr Islam and he put off installing CCTV due to
the expense. Planning had not made a representation and was a
separate regime. The submission was made that the final warning
issued by the police in December 2024 meant that they were content
for him to continue with the licence and yet despite no new
evidence their representation submitted shortly after stated no
they had no confidence in him and this was unfair. The applicant
would be the only member of staff selling alcohol and was trained
and would train other staff. The applicant would be compliant going
forward, had learnt much and had assistance from the agent.
During questions from the panel and others,
doubts were raised as to the ability of the applicant to run the
business himself and be on the premises at all times 7 days a week.
It was stated that his wife sometimes helps out.
 
The panel has carefully considered this
application on its merits and in light of the concerns raised by
the Responsible Authorities and submissions on behalf of the
applicant. The panel is very mindful of the location of these
premises in the CIZ and in particular St James’s street which
suffers from relatively high levels of crime and disorder.
 
Taking the history of these premises into
account and the previous breaches of licence conditions and lapses
of the licence, the panel does not have confidence that the
applicant will operate these premises in accordance with the
requirements of the licensing regime and conditions on the licence.
The responsible authorities have intervened and given advice but
still issues have remained. Respectfully, the panel does not
construe the police ‘final warning’ on the 5th December
2024 as a demonstration of their confidence in the licence holder,
and in the context of a new application after a further lapse of
the licence it understands why representation was made by the
police and joined by the Licensing Authority. The panel is also
concerned about the ability of the applicant to be on the premises
all the time and cope with the demands of operating the licence
including administrative requirements which he has not shown
himself capable of in the past, and this gives further cause for
concern. Overall the panel shares the concerns of the responsible
authorities and considers that granting this licence in the CIZ in
this location is likely to undermine the licensing objectives and
therefore the application is refused.
 
The minutes of the panel will be available on
the Council’s website under the rubric ‘Council and
Democracy’.