Purpose

Application for a New Premises Licence under
the Licensing Act 2003

Content

RE: Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification
of the Determination of Panel.
 

Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Monday
14th July 2025 in respect of the application for a
premises licence in respect of premises known as Smacks Hamburger,
46 West Street, Brighton, BN1 2RA
 
 
The Panel has read all
the papers including the report, and relevant representations 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
negatively 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 late-night refreshment licence gourmet burger takeaway with late
night refreshment from 23:00 to 03:00 every day.
 
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 the focal
point for operation Marble in the heart of the CIZ and suffered
high levels of crime and disorder, over 9000 incidents in one year
with a peak between 01:00 and 02:00 hours. Offering food for
takeaway for the hours applied encouraged people to remain in the
area, attracted intoxicated persons and was likely to lead to an
increase in incidents and hinder dispersal. No exceptional
circumstances had been shown. Conditions could not fully mitigate
this risk, and they were therefore recommending refusal. The
licensing authority was also concerned about the application in
policy terms and location and whether there were any exceptional
circumstances to depart from the policy.
 
The applicant was
represented by Mr Hadad a chartered environmental Health officer.
He made the following submissions. His client had operated for 6
months without complaints. The previous tenant had had a late-night
refreshment licence until midnight. The business needed extended
hours to survive. Other businesses had closed within the CIZ. He
had suggested conditions such as SIA security from 09:00 to 03:00
hours on Friday and Saturday. Other proposals were to have no
takeaways after midnight with eat-in only or delivery only after
midnight or closing at 02:00 hours. There would be no congregation
of delivery drivers. 
 
The panel and police
were able to question the applicant and did so especially around
how some of these proposals would be managed and the SIA security
role, and the nature of this location.
 
The panel has
carefully considered this application on its merits and is mindful
of the location of the premises in West Street within the CIZ which
experiences high levels of crime and disorder and is a very
challenging area as illustrated by the police. The panel did not
consider that the applicant’s representative demonstrated
adequate understanding of the area which is at the core of the CIZ
or of the challenges such an operation presented in this location.
During questioning especially, the panel considered that there was
inconsistency in the presentation and messaging, and the panel, and
the responsible authorities, were left unclear about the approaches
to management, door control and security, and deliveries.
Furthermore, the panel do not consider that the applicant has shown
any exceptional circumstances to enable departure from the
cumulative impact policy. Overall, the panel shares the police and
licensing concerns that granting the application is likely to add
to problems of cumulative impact and undermine the licensing
objectives. The panel is therefore refusing this
application.