Purpose

Application for a New Premises Licence under
the Licensing Act 2003

Content

Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions) - Notification of
the Determination of Panel.
 

Licensing panel hearing held via Teams on Friday 6th June 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 23:00 hours. 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 special
circumstances relating to this application in that a premises
licence has been in existence previously but has lapsed twice. A
further application was made and heard by the licensing panel on
3rd February 2025. That application was refused. This application
is for one less hour to be in line with the planning hours. For
this application a new DPS has been proposed and a statement to
that effect provided.
 
Both the police and
licensing authority continue to 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. The police made the following points:

•               
Even with an alternative DPS Mr Islam, the licence holder, would
still be in control
•               
So much assistance had already been given to Mr Isam to no
avail

•               
The proposed DPS has already transgressed by not updating his
personal licence home address which is still an offence and on top
of the history of failings does not instil confidence. There were
timeline discrepancies in his statement.

•               
This is a very challenging area within the CIZ and a licence here needs robust management which
police believe in view of past will not be the case
 
The licensing
authority also referred to the history of failings and issues and
believed if granted a licence there would be further breaches.
 
The applicant’s
solicitor addressed the panel and made the following
submissions:

•               
This is a small and existing premises of 28 covers so will not add
to number of premises and complies with the Matrix.
•               
The applicant accepts his failures and was overstretched
before.

•               
He is trading at a significant loss without sale of alcohol. His
assets are tied up with the premises and asks to be given second
chance to start a new chapter.
•               
He did not understand the previous administrative company
lapses
•               
There have been no major breaches such as underage sales

•               
The proposed DPS is experienced and will work to ensure licensing
objectives are promoted. The failure to change address was a minor
infringement.

•               
If the proposed DPS moved on in the future the police would be able
to vet any new DPS.
 
The panel and other
parties were able to ask questions. Mr Veres, the proposed DPS,
stated that he would be in the premises on a regular basis mostly
in the evenings. There was no written agreement yet but terms had been discussed. He detailed his
hospitality experience.
 
The panel has
carefully considered this application on its merits and
in light of the continuing objections
raised by the Responsible Authorities and the submissions on behalf
of the applicant. The panel recognises that some changes have been
made to distinguish this application from the last one, notably the
introduction of Mr Veres as DPS. However, regrettably, the panel is
not sufficiently convinced by the proposals. The arrangement with
Mr Veres is informal and the terms not certain. The situation could
change and the licence holder would
still be in place in any event. The police also point to
inconsistencies in the account provided by Mr Veres and this is a concern as well as the
transgression regarding his personal licence details. The history
of this premises with the lapses of the licence and the breaches of
conditions is of real concern and while the panel feel some
sympathy for the applicant, it takes very seriously the ongoing
concerns of the Responsible Authorities and has given these much
weight. In the past both the police and licensing authority have
spent time assisting the applicant but still problems and breaches
have continued. The panel too is very mindful of the location of
these premises in the CIZ and in particular
St James’s Street which suffers relatively high levels
of crime and disorder. It is essential therefore that there is good
management in accordance with the licensing regime and conditions
on the licence. In view of the history of failings and breaches
associated with these premises, the panel does not have confidence
that the premises will be managed to promote the licensing
objectives and regrettably shares the
view of the
responsible authorities that granting would undermine the licensing
objectives. The application is therefore refused.