Violent crime and public order problems were cited by Sussex Police as the force objected to a new food outlet being granted a drinks licence in a busy Brighton street.
Police licensing officer Claire Abdulkader said that St James’s Street had a dedicated police presence because it was an area of concern.
She said that there were 1,670 recorded incidents, including 691 crimes, within a 160-metre radius over the past year.
Her comments to a Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel were made at a hearing to decide whether to grant a premises licence to Malo, an Argentinian empanada outlet.
The top three types of crime were violence (228 crimes or 33 per cent), theft (206 crimes or 30 per cent) and public order (96 crimes or 14 per cent).
Ms Abdulkader said: “There are regular incidents occurring within the locality requiring police attention.
“It’s an area that attracts street drinking and drug-related offences and these incidents are spread throughout the day and into the early hours.”
The family who submitted the licence application already run a branch of Malo in Duke Street, Brighton, and a restaurant, the Baqueano steak house, in Western Road, Brighton.
They plan to open a second branch of Malo tomorrow (Thursday 25 July) in the shop formerly known as DescryUK at 90 St James’s Street.
Malo is run by a family of Argentinians and Italians – Jorge Pautasso, 56, Adriana Torrembo, 58, Mariel Pautasso, 29, and Borja Pautasso, 22.
They opened their Duke Street outlet in July 2021 and want to be allowed to sell alcohol at their new branch from noon to 9pm.
As well as Sussex Police, a neighbour submitted an objection – as did the council’s licensing team.
Before the licensing panel hearing today (Wednesday 24 July), the family said that they were willing to abide by similar licence conditions to those at their Duke Street premises.
Customers who wanted to drink alcohol would be served while seated at a table and food would be available at all times.
Council licensing officer Donna Lynsdale said that St James’s Street was a problem area and that the issue was with “off-sales”.
Mrs Torrembo said: “We are concerned about the atmosphere. We like to offer a family atmosphere in each of our businesses. This is our first priority.”
Question. If the problem already exists because of a reputation, as described by the police officer, is an additional space going to have any significant impact either way?
I think another aspect we should also consider is the local amenities to support drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and the concentration of supported accommodations that often house individuals who struggle with addiction behaviours.
Realistically, I don’t see someone with an addiction like this going to an establishment, but preferring the cheapest way to get drunk.
Yes – as long as they can’t shoplift or rob the less than cheap wine !
Which would still have no baring on this applicant!
Whilst this one venue may not have much of an impact on its own it’s within the cumulative impact zone and that is one of the concerns the panel will have to consider.
A good point as always. Perhaps if the worry is more strategic, then licensing should also be strategic in its application.
Basically the Police are objecting because of their own inability to control the area.
The licensing councillors also recently refused permission for a supermarket in Western Road to sell alcohol. How ridiculous! This could only happen in Britain. People expect a supermarket to sell alcohol, and if it doesn’t many will go elsewhere, punishing the proprietors because of the small-mindedness of the police and councillors.
With that level of crime it really does beggar the question – where are the police ?. Objecting due to own failings is not really a good reason. There should be patrols (yes walking) in that area.
Well done to the police, people have a glass of wine with their food is definitely the root cause of all the crime problems on St James Street.
It’s perhaps worth noting the changes to this street in recent years.
What was once primarily a local high street with various shops, including fishmongers, butchers and vegetable stalls, is now more a cafe, restaurant and bar space, on a par with Preston Street.
So it’s then a genuine concern how many places selling alcohol you allow in just one strip.
That said, you can already buy off-sales of alcohol on St James’s street until late at night, and to have one more cafe serving drinks with meals isn’t going to make any difference.
The problems of antisocial behaviour on this street aren’t actually caused by any of the businesses operating there.
True the businessss themselves don’t usually cause problems but it’s their clients that do.
And whilst some are better than others at not for example serving already intoxicated people some need to do better and it’s the cumulative impact that needs to be considered.
They should be given the licence. The antisocial behaviour is not caused by the 40+ year olds using places like this it is caused by the rough sleepers the council keeps on dumping in this area. The people causing the problems could not afford to go here. St James street needs to support and encourage businesses like this and remove the licence if it causes issues.
A rare consensus in this comment section.
It’s a street full of casinos, betting shops, off-licences, vape shops, charity shops and fast food joints near a bunch of emergency housing. At the risk of sounding a bit snobby and pro-gentrification, mightn’t a family-run Argentinian eatery be part of the solution rather than the problem?