Agenda item - The Lord of Wine Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification of the Determination

Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Wednesday 9th July 2025 in respect of the application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of premises known as The Lord of Wine, 33 Western Road, Brighton, BN3 1AF

The panel has considered the report of the Corporate Director of City Operations with the relevant representations and the addendum submissions from the applicant. It has listened carefully to all the points and submissions made. 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 variation of a premises licence currently authorising the sale of alcohol off the premises every day, 08:00 to 23:00 hours. The application is for an extension of these hours for off sales as follows: Sunday – Thursday 07:00 – 03:00; Friday – Saturday 07:00 – 04:00, with opening hours to match these times. The premises 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 variations of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact, 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. The impact can be expected to be different for premises with different styles and characteristics. A matrix approach has also been adopted in the policy which indicates that an off-licence in the CIZ would not be granted, subject to the special policy.

Representations were received from Sussex Police, and the Licensing Authority. The representations raised the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, prevention of public nuisance, the protection of children from harm and cumulative impact.

The police are concerned about further increasing the availability of alcohol in an area already suffering from relatively high levels of crime and disorder, and many existing licensed premises. They cited crime statistics which illustrated this with a peak crime rate from midnight to 1:00 am. They are concerned that an additional licence will thus add to negative cumulative impact. The applicant has not addressed the location in the CIZ and there are no exceptional circumstances demonstrated.

The licensing authority is concerned about breaches of the current conditions found upon inspection, notably CCTV issues, inadequate staff training records, missing or incomplete refusals book. There is a lack of awareness of obligations and conditions under the licence. Furthermore, the application is contrary to policy, likely to add to negative cumulative impact and no exceptional circumstances have been shown.

The applicant addressed the panel. He was applying for the extension in hours due to economic hardship and competition from nearby shops with later licences. The issues around the CCTV and refusal book were due to a personal emergency and the need to visit Turkey. Everything was in order now. He was willing to hire a security guard and comply with all conditions. He would be willing to compromise on the hours to 1 or 2 am but no earlier. He operated responsibly with no incidents.

The panel has carefully considered this application on its merits and in light of the concerns raised by the Responsible Authorities and submissions by the applicant. The panel is mindful of the location of these premises in the CIZ and that the police have provided evidence of crime and disorder in the area and that they strongly believe granting this variation or any extension in hours would add to negative cumulative impact. The licensing authority shares these concerns. The panel appreciate the economic reasons for this application but do not consider that any exceptional circumstances to depart from the special policy have been shown. The previous breaches of conditions do not give the panel confidence that the applicant could manage the risk involved in granting such an extension and does not consider a security condition would be adequate or able to deal with risk in the CIZ especially once customers had left the premises. Overall, the panel consider that granting this variation is very likely to add to the cumulative impact of problems already in the area and thus undermine the licensing objectives. As already stated, the panel does not consider that exceptional circumstances have been shown in this case. The application is therefore refused.

3.1      The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the application to the panel.

3.2      The Sussex Police Licensing Officer addressed the panel and noted that the application site lay in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ) and they sort to vary the times of the licence. The applicant had no pre-consultation with Sussex Police and there was nothing in the report to show support for the applicant. Following a full licensing check the applicant was requested to improve and provide a full training log, refusal register and working CCTV. The extra alcohol sales will present additional risks and challenges, and the applicant has not demonstrated they understand. No special circumstances have been shown to approve the request in the CIZ. The surrounding area is often visited by Police to attend incidents, some alcohol related. The peak times for this is between midnight and 1am. The panel were requested to refuse the application.

Answers to panel Members Questions for Sussex Police

3.3      Councillor Thomson was informed that the 31% of crimes in the area were against persons, and these could be alcohol related. The licences for the other nearby off licences were granted a long time ago, pre CIZ.

3.4      Councillor Parrott was informed that the ages of those involved in crimes in the area were not known.

3.5      Councillor Pickett was informed that the Police would not accept additional conditions and would prefer a strong refusal.

3.6      The Fair-Trading Officer addressed the panel and stated that they considered the application would have a negative impact on the crime and disorder policy in the CIZ. The application business was visited and the applicant made aware of breaches, the lack of response raised concerns. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. The panel were requested to refuse the application.

Answers to Questions for the Fair-Trading Officer

3.7      Councillor Thomson was informed that the officer did not have confidence in the applicant. Staff training seems to be an issue, which is a condition of the original licence. There is no refusals book for 2025 on the premises. At the time of the site visit there was no CCTV screen. It is noted that a screen is now in place.

3.8      Councillor Parrott was informed that there was no refusals book for 2025, and there had been a number of refusals in 2024.

3.9      Councillor Pickett was informed that the half the shelves in the shop stocked alcohol, leading to a prominent display.

3.10    Erkut Ogut addressed the panel as the applicant and stated that they had to go to Turkey for a family emergency and this had led to a lot of issues at the premises. The economy is not good, and this has led to the submission of the application for longer hours to earn more money. Two premises nearby have late licences to 3 and 5am. The applicant stated they had been in the business for 8 years with no problems. The CCTV is in operation and recordings are kept for the required 28 days. The broken screen has been replaced. The fair-trade officer was shown via mobile and email that the CCTV was working. Police checks have all been ok. The refusal book is now on the premises. No cheap alcohol or over 6% volume is sold. The applicant is happy to use a security company if the panel feel that’s necessary.

          Answers to the applicant from panel Members

3.11    Councillor Thomson was informed that there had been 10 refusals in thew last 6 months, and 26 in 2024. The security company suggested was Consec, who would be at the premises 5 hours per week. 30/40% of the shop was given over to alcohol.

3.12    Councillor Parrott was informed that the applicant’s wife would work during the day, and they would work the evening and night hours. All staff were trained before the emergency visit to Turkey.

3.13    Sussex Police were informed that shoplifting was prevented by having a cover over the counter, high % alcohol behind the counter, CCTV and alarm system. A security guard would be placed at the door to prevent entrance to anyone looking drunk. It was noted the other late licences in the surrounding area were granted in 2005.

3.14    Councillor Pickett suggested closing at midnight or 1am. The applicant did not feel this was useful. Sussex Police confirmed that any extension to the hours would be problematic. The Fair-Trade officer agreed that there were no exceptional circumstances.

Summing Up

3.15    The Licensing officer summed up.

3.16    Sussex Police summed up.

3.17    The Fair-Trade officer summed up.

3.18    The applicant summed up.

3.19    The lawyer summed up.

3.20    The panel retired to consider the application.