Agenda item - Camelford Arms - Licensing Act 2003 Functions

Licensing panel hearing held virtually via Teams on Friday 5th June 2026, in respect of the Temporary Event Notice in respect of The Camelford Arms, 30 – 31 Camelford Street, Brighton BN2 1TQ.

The Panel has read all the papers including the report, objection notice and appendices, and all additional information. It has listened carefully to all the submissions made today. The panel has had regard to the Statutory Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy where appropriate.

This is a notification of a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for the time period 31st July to the 3rd of August 2026 (Pride Weekend). Full details are in the papers before the panel.

Objection notices were received from the police and environmental protection (EP) but the objection from EP was subsequently withdrawn.

The police, through their barrister, and in person, clarified that their concerns related specifically to the off sales element of the TEN during the extended hours, that this could lead to proxy sales and the consumption of alcohol in uncontrolled spaces such as the beach, where persons could be victims or perpetrators of crime thus undermining the licensing objectives. It was stated that there was a direct correlation between the reduction of the number of crimes in general during last year’s Pride weekend and the prohibition of off sales for Pride TENs which had been instigated by the police in 2025. There was also an increase in incidents on the beach. Due to the lack of control over off sales and the risk involved, the police wanted the premises to confine their sales to on the premises only during the extended hours in line with other premises during Pride. It was accepted that the premises was a good operator and that no crimes were attributable to the Camelford Arms.

The applicants made several arguments to support their case including as follows: Each application had to be considered on its own individual merits and not as part of a blanket policy in relation to Pride. The police case relied on speculation and not evidence. They had a long history of operating successfully during Pride since 2010, there had been regular police and council visits and no complaints or issues. FOI requests showed no recorded proxy-sale offences connected to Pride. Their off sales were typically for customers to stand and congregate on the street close to the pub and drinks were only sold in open plastic cups. Their customers were generally older and did not wander off with their drinks. They had 3 security staff to supervise the area. They were good operators in line with the new policy.

The panel has considered whether to issue a Counter Notice in this case. It appreciates how carefully the police plan for Pride each year. However, while the wider context of Pride is relevant, the panel must consider each case on its individual merits. The panel did not find the police case very strong in terms of the evidence presented. The arguments made regarding the statistics presented were very tenuous and did not link in any way to the Camelford Arms or necessarily to off sales in general. While the premises could not benefit from a presumption of grant as good operators under new the policy as this applied to variations not TENs, it was still relevant that they fitted the definition and had not caused any problems during a long period of TENs during Pride. The panel could not apply what was in effect a blanket policy approach to off sales to this individual application when there was no evidence or likelihood of it undermining the licensing objectives. The panel did not consider that off sales from the Camelford Arms was likely to lead to drinking in uncontrolled spaces. It had heard from the applicants that their off sales were supervised by door staff and largely limited to an area directly outside the pub; drinks were unlikely to be taken to the beach. The panel has thus decided not to issue a counter notice in this case which means the event can go ahead.

1.    Those attending the meeting introduced themselves.

2.    The Licensing Officer introduced the report to the panel.

3.    There were no questions for the officer.

4.    The Sussex Police legal representative stated that the footprint of Pride reduced last year, and the Camelford Arms was the only premises with an off sales license. This was through a misunderstanding. The only objection from the Police is to the ‘window bar’ selling off sales. Off sales is the issue as evidence shows that removing off sales from other venues across Pride has reduced crime statistics. The licensing statement of policy is for a presumption to grant a variation of licence under a Temporary Events Notice (TEN). The Police objection remains, with concerns regarding proxy sales to minors, as not premises can control off sales after they have been sold. There is no objection to on the premises sales.

5.    Following questions, the panel Members were informed that the data referenced was from across the city and there were 77 TENs last year, with 19 withdrawn. Other premises not having off sales was considered impactful last year. The Police want to support the premises but also want to reduce incidents across the city.  The Police consider inside sales to be safe. It was noted that the Police considered there were significant increases in crime during Pride. There is no data for other Prides.

6.    Following questions the applicant’s legal representative was informed that there were no crimes recorded by the Police last year at the Camelford Arms. It was noted the crime statistics were citywide. The Police noted that the difference between off sales and proxy sales was explained via email and at a recent in person meeting. The Police stated they were not trying to control the Pride event or affect usual sales but trying to discourage off sales. The Police considered there was high demand on them during the afternoon, evening and late at night during Pride, so it was not possible to have many officers in the early hours. The Police confirmed they objected to the ‘window bar’ off sales. The Police stated they were trying to reduce crime, particularly in the early hours and they had no objection to the Camelford Arms. The Police considered it was possible that off sales customers could take drink to the beach and consume it there.

7.    The applicant’s legal representative addressed the panel and stated that they considered the law was clear, the TEN process is a light touch process, and the onus was on the Police to show why the TEN can not be granted. The Police have visited the premises and confirmed that there are no issues. Each application should be considered on its own merits and not a part of the wider Pride event, and conditions be tailored to the individual premises, avoiding conditions that are burdensome on the venue. Pride is the jewel-in-the-crown of the city, not a headache. The TEN should be granted unless evidence can be shown. No issues have been raised over the last 16 years.

8.    The applicant stated that there have been no problems over the last 16 years. From the 2010 to 2026 the TEN has been the same. Customers stand outside the pub and don’t wonder away. There is security at the pub and off sales are only for customers to stand outside the pub. Beach issues are not related to the Camelford Arms. The Camelford Arms are a good operator.

9.    Following questions the panel Members were informed that the legal representative of the applicant considered the presumption was to grant TENs, and evidence had not been supplied by the Police to prevent the application being granted. The council lawyer confirmed that the licensing Matrix did not apply to TENs.

10. Following questions the legal representative of Sussex Police was informed that Camelford Street is usually empty by 02.30, there is no loud music outside the premises, and customers are generally over 50 years old, creating a gentle crowd with no underage drinking. It was considered that off sales would not be proxy sales as they would be in plastic slippy pint glasses, there would be 3 security staff, the applicant and one other constantly moving around the crowd.

Summaries

11. The council legal representative was informed that no off sales would be in sealed containers and there was no table-and-chairs licence at the premises.

12. The Licensing Officer summarised the licensing statement.

13. The Sussex Police representative summarised the Police’s statement.

14. The applicant’s Legal representative summarised their statement.

15. The applicant summarised their statement.

16. The chair closed the public meeting and stated that the panel would know retire to consider the application.