Agenda item - Islingword Local - Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification of the Determination

Licensing panel hearing held via Teams on Wednesday 29^th April 2026 in respect of the application for a new premises licence in respect of premises known as Islingword Local, 80 Islingword Road, Brighton BN2 9SL.

The panel has considered all the papers, including the addendum and Applicant’s bundle. 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 new premises licence, authorising the sale of alcohol off the premises every day, 08:00 to 23:00 hours. The premises falls within the Special Stress Area (SSA) which, as detailed in the statement of licensing policy, is deemed an area of special concern in terms of the relatively high levels of crime and disorder and public nuisance experienced within it.

A matrix approach has also been adopted in the policy which indicates that an off-licence in the SSA would not be supported save in exceptional circumstances subject to consideration of the individual merits of the application.

5 representations were received from Sussex Police, the Licensing Authority, local business and a local resident. 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. There was no pre-consultation by the applicant. They are concerned that an additional licence will add to problems of street drinking, underage sales and antisocial behaviour. They see no exceptional circumstances to depart from the Matrix. They were requesting refusal but had put forward a set of conditions if the panel were minded to grant.

The licensing authority expressed similar policy concerns acting as guardians of the policy and invited the panel to consider if there were any exceptional circumstances. Concerns were raised about the applicant’s compliance history involving a breach of condition at his premises in West Street involving inadequate door supervision.

The barrister representing the business objectors also emphasised the importance of the policy context and that the police are the primary source of evidence concerning crime and disorder. It was incumbent on the applicant to prove they were an exception to the policy. He also pointed to the breach of condition by the applicant which had come to light and was of concern when many conditions were being put forward. The area was also saturated with off licences and convenience stores.  

The applicant’s legal representative addressed the panel. He said the breach which had been raised was unfortunate but has been rectified by his client, and otherwise he has traded without issue and has relevant experience. The intention is for the premises to trade primarily as a convenience store with alcohol ancillary to that. The clientele would be local residents not street drinkers. It was primarily a residential area. Detailed conditions were offered as per the Bundle submitted, notably 5.5 alcohol maximum strength, no single cans, alcohol labelling for traceability. It was contended that these would mitigate risk and could justify departing from the policy. The applicant was also willing to reduce the sale of alcohol hours to 22:00 and 22:30 hours. The licensing consultant spoke to the report in the bundle and confirmed the assessment of the area as residential and the applicant’s intentions.

The panel and other parties were able to question the applicant and his representatives and did so concerning whether the application was exceptional, and the detail and practicalities of the proposed conditions and other measures. 

The panel has carefully considered this application on its merits and in light of the concerns raised by the responsible authorities, those making representations and submissions on behalf of the applicant. The panel is mindful of the location of these premises in the SSA and the policy context. The panel does recognise that the applicant has, through his agent, put forward a number of conditions which may offer some mitigation in terms of the area and risk involved. However, ultimately, the panel can see nothing exceptional about the application as it is proposed to be a convenience store like many others in the area who sell groceries alongside alcohol. The conditions proposed are not, the panel considers, exceptional in themselves. The area is saturated with licensed premises, and the panel shares the concerns of the responsible authorities that increasing the availability of alcohol in this area is likely to undermine the licensing objectives. 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      Sussex Police Licensing officer stated that Sussex Police objected to the application for a new alcohol licence which was located in the Special Stress Area (SSA). The application was to sell alcohol from 08.00 to 23.00 every day. Crime and disorder reports were high in the area, therefore unique reasons to grant permission were required. The suggested conditions submitted by the applicant’s agent were not sufficient. The Police crime stats were confirmed, however, those submitted by the agent were not. The panel were requested to refuse the application.

3.3      Following questions Councillors were informed by Sussex Police that it appeared that the applicant’s agent stated stats came from a website. The Sussex Police stats came directly from their own system and included a larger area, which included open spaces. The objector’s agent was informed that Sussex Police were requesting a refusal and only suggested conditions in case the panel decided to grant permission. The applicant’s agent was informed that Sussex Police agreed the suggested conditions and submitted conditions by the applicant were similar.

3.4      It was confirmed by the applicant’s agent that stats submitted were from the national police website and were focused on Elm Grove ward. It was also noted that 75% of the front window would be clear to allow views of outside and there would be no alcohol promotions. The agent suggested a finish time of 22.00 instead of 23.00 if the Police were supportive.

3.5      The Fair-Trading Officer made a presentation on the application. It was stated that there had been a breach of conditions at another store run by the applicant.

3.6      Following questions the panel and agents were informed by the Fair-Trading officer that until the applicant’s submission was received, the day before the panel met, the other shops run by the applicant were not considered. However, it was noted that following the breach of conditions the applicant had rectified the situation and two security officers were now located on the door. The breach occurred when the Fair-Trading officer made a routine visit to the premises late at night.

3.7      The agent acting on behalf of an objecting business stated that the breach at the other premises was a concern. The panel should note that the Special Stress Area (SSA) was still in place and matrix works very well as a guide to the licensing objectives and encourages diversity. The applicant needs to prove the exception to the regulations. The stats submitted by the applicant focused on a few roads only, not the whole area. It was noted that Sussex Police considered that granting the application would result in an increase in street drinking. The evidence supported a refusal.

3.8      Following questions the panel and applicant’s agents were informed by the agent acting on behalf of the objecting party that the objecting business was Queens Park Wines, which was granted by a licensing panel in 2010 to serve alcohol till 23.30 every day.

3.9      The applicant’s agents addressed the panel and stated that they apologised for the late submission of details related to the application. The breach at the other location was not necessarily a ‘nail in the coffin’ of this current application. The application is for a convenience store that also sells alcohol, and no high strength alcohol. The hours of sale could be reduced to 22.00 if the panel wish. An apology was given for the lack of pre application engagement, but now the agent wanted to engage. The granting of permission with the suggested conditions would mitigate any issues. The applicant wants to run a local convenience store for the local community. It was considered that street drinkers look for weak leadership to exploit. The applicant has no intension of allowing any street drinking. The applicant is a helpful and responsible person as highlighted by the supporting statements.

3.10    Following questions the panel and officers were informed by the applicant and the applicant’s agents that the store would supply the local community with a variety of everyday things, and the sale of alcohol formed only a small part of the business. This will attract customers who want everything in one place. For the first hour of opening between 07.00 and 08.00 the alcohol would be screened from customers. High strength spirits will be behind the counter, and the remainder will be on shelves and in a fridge.

3.11    Following questions the panel and officers were informed by the applicant and the applicant’s agents that the condition 18 related to the sale of illicit alcohol and condition 20, the labelling of alcohol bottles to illustrate where it was obtained from. The layout of the shop was not such an issue as city centre shops where shoplifting was an issue. The staff will be trained to deal with issues. Spirts are to be located behind the counter and other alcohol can be added to this. Two members of staff will work in the shop at busy times. The applicant is a member of the crime reduction unit and is happy to have call radios at the new store. ‘Challenge 25’ posters will be displayed. The applicant is always available whenever needed and will be working at the new shop. The applicant employed agents for the previous licensing applications. It was understood that the sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person was illegal. It was confirmed that the breach of conditions at another premises was due to the second security officer being off sick and the other being in a car outside the shop down the street. The applicant had rectified the situation as soon as they were emailed by the Fair-Trading officer.

          Summaries

3.12    The Senior Licensing Officer summarised their statement.

3.13    The Fair-Trading Officer summarised their statement.

3.14    The Sussex Police Licensing Officer summarised their statement.

3.15    The objector’s agent summarised their statement.

3.16    The applicant’s agents summarised their statement.

3.17    The Chair stated the panel would retire and consider the application and closed the meeting.

          End: 12.39