Agenda item - Cookes News Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

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

3.2      Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Wednesday 25^th June 2025 in respect of the application for a new premises licence in respect of premises known as Cookes News, 1 Montefiore Road, Hove, BN3 1RD.

3.3      The panel has read the report including the relevant representations and has had regard to the Statement of Licensing Policy (SoLP) and the statutory guidance and has listened carefully to all the submissions made today. 

3.4      This is an application for a new premises licence from a newsagent and convenience store for off sales of alcohol, Monday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:00, Friday and Saturday: 08:00 to 00:00, Sunday: 09:00 to 22:30. The applicant has agreed to a set of conditions with Sussex Police, and these are in the papers. The premises are not within the cumulative impact zone or special stress area. At the start of the hearing the applicant amended their hours to 23:00 hours Friday to Saturday. 

3.5      21 representations and 1 supporting representation were received. They were received from local residents, local Councillors and the Licensing Authority. The representations had concerns relating to the prevention of public nuisance, cumulative impact, prevention of crime and disorder, and protection of children from harm.

3.6      During the hearing the ward Councillor and local residents highlighted the following concerns:

·       Cumulative Impact: Already two off-licenses nearby; a third is excessive and will increase footfall

·       The notes to the Matrix at 7 and 8 referred to cumulative impact and residential areas.

·       Noise & antisocial behaviour, disturbances, litter, and late-night noise would increase.

·       Proximity to sensitive sites: Opposite a private hospital and near St Anne’s Wells Gardens.

·       Change of community character: Fear of area becoming dominated by alcohol and vape shops.

3.7      The applicant’s representative addressed the panel and made the following points:

·       The shop has operated for 40 years as a convenience store.

·       Alcohol sales are now essential for viability due to changing consumer habits.

·       Applicant has 16 years of experience at a neighbouring premises with no breaches of licensing conditions.

·       Need is not a relevant licensing consideration as per the S182 Guidance.

·       Measures proposed: CCTV (31-day retention), Challenge 25 policy, staff training and refusal logs, no high-strength alcohol (>6%), no single cans, no alcohol deliveries, no advertising of alcohol to be seen from outside, no A-board alcohol advertising, posters to reduce noise.

·       They would be willing to reduce hours to 10 PM.

3.8      The panel has considered this application on its merits. The panel appreciates the strength of feeling from those making representations against the application and it has been a difficult decision. The panel takes the concerns raised very seriously. However, the panel must only apply relevant licensing considerations and consider whether granting this application is likely to undermine the licensing objectives and add to issues in the area. The application has been amended from that originally submitted and is now subject to a robust set of conditions agreed with the police who have not made a representation. The licensing authority representation has also been effectively withdrawn due to the amended hours. The applicant has shown a willingness to compromise and is willing to further reduce the hours to 22:00 every day. This is earlier than the other 2 premises in the immediate vicinity and will reduce the potential for any noise or disturbance associated with later opening. On balance the panel do not consider that granting this amended application is likely to attract more people into the area. The applicant has agreed not to do any alcohol deliveries which was a cause for concern. The applicant clearly has relevant local experience and a good track record. Ultimately, the panel considers that granting this amended application is not likely to undermine the licensing objectives or add to issues in the area. The conditions agreed and reduced hours will promote the licensing objectives. The panel therefore grants this application for the sale of alcohol off the premises from 08:00 hours to 22:00 hours, Monday to Saturday, and 09:00 to 22:00 on Sunday. The police conditions and those relevant from the operating schedule will attach to the licence. 

3.1      Emily Fountain introduced the application to the panel.

3.2      The agent acting on behalf of the applicant stated at the start of the hearing that the applicant was willing to reduce opening hours to 23.00 on Friday and Saturday, and 22.30 on Sunday.

3.3      Emma Grant addressed the panel and stated they objected to the application as it ran against the licensing matrix and exceptional circumstances would need to be proved.

Answers to questions for Emma Grant.

3.4      Councillor Lyons was informed that the other off-licences nearby were open from 10.00 to 23.00 and 08.00 to 23.00.

3.5      Ward Councillor O’Quinn addressed the panel and stated that they objected to the application. There were already two off-licences in the road and a third should be refused. The shops are very near each other in a small area in this heavily residential area with a hospital opposite. There is already noise in the road and other issues, leading to lots of objections from residents. The application is not needed or required. The panel were asked to refuse the application.

Answers to questions for the ward councillor

3.6      Councillor Lyons was informed that the Police are aware of anti-social behaviour in the road.

3.7      Harry Young addressed the panel as a local resident and stated that they considered there were too many places selling alcohol already and adding another would create more noise. The shop is also close to a bus stop.

3.8      Nic Roe addressed the panel as a local resident and stated that they considered a third off-licence overkill. The shops in the Montefiore area are changing for the worse, forming a vape shop and alcohol ghetto. Possibly inducing an alcohol war between shops. The application would increase noise and waste in the street. It was noted that there were ques at the existing stores.

3.9      Luke Stanger addressed the panel as a local resident and stated that they considered the application would increase anti-social behaviour. A third off-licence was not required in the family friendly area.

3.10   Nural Islam addressed the panel as a local resident and stated that they objected to the application which was opposite a hospital, and there were other locations offering alcohol including a café and shops nearby.

3.11   Surendra Panchal addressed the panel as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the hospital opposite was notified of the application as a responsible authority. The convenience store has been in business for 42 years and had no problems. To help the shop survive they need to sell alcohol. The new owners have 16 years’ experience, with no breaches in that time. They also run Wilsons News, and know to request ID cards, following the ‘Challenge 25’ policy. The shop will display a poster asking customers to leave quietly. CCTV will be in operation with 31 days of recordings for review at any time. All staff will be trained and a manual of training kept, with a right-to-work checklist. The applicant is happy to abide by the Police conditions, no alcohol above 6%, no promotions, no adverts outside and no deliveries. As stated at the beginning of the meeting, the applicant is happy to reduce opening hours to 22.30 if required.

Answers to questions asked of the agent and applicant

3.12   Councillor Lyons was informed that the two extra members of staff will be employed alongside the husband and wife owners, who live above the shop. The applicant confirmed that they have owned the shop since April 2025.

3.13   Councillor Nann was informed that the applicant would agree a closing time of 22.00.

3.14   Councillor Pickett was informed that the blue areas on the application map were beer shelves in the shop, which sells a wide range of products, as well as lottery tickets and cigarettes. It was noted that the owners were members of the Business Crime Reduction scheme and there have been no noise complaints. It was noted that stats for anti-social behaviour would be held by Sussex Police.

3.15   Ward Councillor O’Quinn considered was informed that the Montefiore Hospital was not a NHS hospital, however, the staff do visit the shop where a notice of the application has been displayed. It was noted that no beaches have occurred at the shop, which did not lie within the cumulative impact zone. The applicant stated that they lived in the area and therefore understood the issues with noise and anti-social behaviour. It was stated that the alcohol licence was being requested as earnings have reduced due to the demise of the newspaper trade. The sale of alcohol would hopefully cover the lost revenue. The agent confirmed there would be no proxy sales.

3.16   Nic Roe was informed that the responsible authorities were contacted by email. Spire Health Care at Montefiore Hospital would have been contacted by Environmental Health.

3.17   Luke Stanger was informed that the no underage sales have taken place at Wilson News and Challenge 25 policy will be used at the new shop.

Summing Up

3.18   Emil Fountain summed up the case for the licensing authority.

3.19   Ward Councillor O’Quinn summed up and stated that two shops selling alcohol was sufficient and a third was unnecessary.

3.20   Emma Grant summed up.

3.21   Nic Roe summed up stating that three off licences were unacceptable.

3.22   Luke Stanger summed up stating that three off licences was excessive and requested that the application be refused. 

3.23   Surendra Panchal summed up stating the applicant had a robust operating schedule and the previous owners had been running at a loss.

3.24   Rebecca Siddell summed up and stated that commercial need was not a licensing issue, however cumulative impact should be considered.

3.25   The licensing panel withdrew to consider the application.