Agenda item - Zaf'ron Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

Licensing Panel hearing held on Tuesday 20 August 2024 virtually in respect of the application for a Late Night Refreshment Licence for Zaf’ron, 99 North Road, Brighton, BN1 1YE

The panel has read all the papers including the report and relevant representations and listened to the submissions put forward at the hearing.  The panel has also had regard to the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy (SOLP) and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 statutory guidance.

The application is for a new Late Night Refreshment Licence authorising the sale of hot food and drink to members of the public between 23.00 and 03.00 hours every day. 

The premises are situated within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). This is an area where the council has determined that the concentration of licensed premises in an area of the city centre is causing problems of crime and disorder and public nuisance, and that an approach to “Cumulative Impact” is necessary as part of its SOLP. That approach provides that applications for new or varied licences in the CIA which are likely to add to the existing Cumulative Impact will be refused following relevant representations. The presumption of refusal can be rebutted if the applicant can show that their application will have no negative Cumulative Impact.

A “matrix” approach to licensing decisions has been adopted by the council in its SOLP. It sets out a framework of what the licensing authority would like to see within its area and gives an indication of the likelihood of success to any applicant.  The matrix suggests that Late Night Refreshment Licences will not be granted in the CIA.

Two representations were received from responsible authorities, the Police and Licensing Authority setting out concerns relating to the Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Public Safety, the Prevention of Public Nuisance and Cumulative Impact. 

The Police representative amplified the Police objection. He provided details of the closing time of other licensed premises in the vicinity and stressed that 3am was significantly later.  There were no other late night takeaways in the immediate vicinity. Late night trading will impact on residents, both through delivery vehicle movements and by attracting people to the area who would otherwise not be there.   Based on their interactions to date with the applicant, the Police had concerns about management’s attitude.

The Licensing Authority representative also expanded upon their objection, and shared the Police’s concerns about the management of the premises.

We heard from the sole director of the applicant company. In their presentation, and in answer to our questions we were told that:

• The application for extended hours was in response to a demand from regular customers.
• The company did not employ sufficient staff to operate as a restaurant until 3am. The plan was to operate as a take away and provide a delivery service. He would use not only his employees for this, but also third party delivery operators, such as Uber and Deliveroo. He did not wish to pursue extended hours at Christmas and New Year.
• He only became a director of the company in January 2024, and therefore could not comment on the unauthorised trading in November 2023.
• With regard to the alleged unauthorised trading in August 2024, that was on Pride weekend. The premises had been busy, and at the time of the Police visit, staff were cooking food for themselves and not the public.
• He was not in a position to change the trading hours on Facebook. That was controlled by previous directors of the company.
• There had been no complaints from local residents about the operation of the premises, nor any reported crime. 
• The director was an experienced SIA registered door supervisor, capable of de-escalating problem behaviour, and of training staff to do the same.  He intended to be at the premises as much as possible, and would have an agreement with a security company if he was not.

The panel has considered this application on its merits.  We note the policy objections to the application – both the CIA and Matrix, but we are particularly struck by the fact that there are no other late- night takeaways in the immediate area, which is somewhat unusual. No residents have objected to the application, and apart from the out of hours trading, no crime has been associated with the premises. The application does not include the sale of alcohol. We found the director’s explanation of the late hours for the premises on Facebook credible, together with his explanation for the apparent breach of the licensing hours over the Pride weekend.  The measures proposed in the operating schedule, appearing as Appendix A in the agenda on page 25, propose a number of measures to address any public nuisance and crime and disorder concerns. They include a Door Supervisor, CCTV and signs requesting patrons to respect the needs of neighbours. We do not believe that the application will add to the issues associated with cumulative impact.

The application is therefore granted with:- 

i)               A condition limiting the operation of the premises between 23.00 and 03.00 every day to takeaway and deliveries only. 

ii)              conditions consistent with the operating schedule.

The Panel believes that the above conditions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The minutes of the panel will be available on the Council’s website under the rubric ‘Council and Democracy’. A webcast of the meeting is also available.

Appeal Rights

(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003)

The applicant may appeal against the decision to impose conditions on the licence. 

Any person who made a relevant representation who desires to contend that the licence ought not to have been granted, or that on granting the licence, the licensing authority ought to have imposed different or additional conditions, may appeal against the decision.

All appeals must be made to Magistrates’ Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of notification of this decision letter. A fee is payable upon lodging an appeal.