The council has turned down a sushi restaurant and takeaway’s application for a late-night licence and drinks licence.
The decision to reject the Sushi Co’s application was made by a Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel last week.
The panel was told that when the premises were found trading later than permitted, one of the Sushi Co’s bosses called a council official a “jobsworth”.
Sussex Police and the council’s licensing team objected to the company’s licence application – it wanted to sell alcohol until 11am daily and deliver hot food and drink until 3am.
The business, at 65 Western Road, Brighton, was found trading after 11pm. A late-night refreshment licence is required to sell hot food and drink between 11pm and 5am.
Police and council licensing officers turned up after 11pm on Friday 7 November in response to reports that the business was trading without a late-night refreshment licence.
The council and police checked the business’s website and food delivery apps and found a range of opening hours on different sites, with deliveries listed as being available until 3am – and 4am at weekends.
When the council and police turned up, staff working in the kitchen said that they were open until 3am and serving hot food.
A member of staff called his boss, believed to have been the business owner Varanand Sama.
At the licensing panel hearing on Wednesday 7 January, council licensing official Donna Lynsdale said that she told the man on the phone the business could not sell hot food after 11pm and he called her a “jobsworth”.
Mark Thorogood, from Sussex Police, told the panel that the force had no confidence in the business to keep to licence conditions after finding it open after midnight on Sunday 14 December and again at 11.20pm on New Year’s Eve.
The Sushi Co’s head of marketing Jim Hawker apologised for the poor start to the company’s relationship with the police and the council.
He said that the company had operated for more than three years in London and had invested £1 million in its Brighton operation.
The company’s head of operations Haran Thushiharan said that he had spoken with company director Varanand Sama who denied being the person on the phone to Ms Lynsdale.
Mr Thushiharan said that the company had more than 30 restaurants, most in London, with more opening in the next few months.
The council’s decision letter said: “Ultimately, the panel shares the concerns of the police and licensing authority, which were well set out, and does not have confidence or trust in the applicants to operate within the proper terms and conditions of a licence if granted.
“The previous recent history gives it cause for concern.
“It is surprising that as an established chain of premises in London there seemed to be no understanding of the licensing regime at the Brighton premises.
“Unfortunately, the panel has not been reassured by what it has heard at the hearing.”
A sensible decision however I feel that this will go to appeal. The management might be better off spending time and money actually engaging with the authorities, to understand the objections in this situation.
Agreed. I do wonder if an appeal would be successful, though, since the reasoning is particularly well-grounded in this case.
Benjamin Franks is a Conservative political figure in
South Portslade, Brighton and Hove, who most recently stood as a candidate in the January 11, 2024, by-election for the Brighton and Hove City Council.
Criticisms from local residents and political observers, primarily documented in public forum responses and local news commentary during his campaigns, include:
Reliance on “Party Line” Rhetoric: Some critics argued that his campaign responses felt generic and lacked personal political depth. He was accused by some of using “typical attack lines” of the Conservative Party rather than establishing a unique local vision.
Contradictions on Local Policy: Critics pointed out perceived inconsistencies in his platform. For example, while Franks opposed the closure of local schools like St Peter’s, critics noted that other Conservative members on relevant committees had previously voted in favor of closure consultations, leading some to label his stance as populist or “spineless”.
View on Property Rights: During discussions on waste collection, a comment from Franks regarding refuse workers not entering private gardens was criticized by some as potentially advocating for council workers to enter private property uninvited, which critics argued contradicted traditional Conservative views on property rights.
Perceived “Alarmism”: Some observers characterized his rhetoric as “alarmist,” particularly regarding his portrayal of local issues like graffiti, weeds, and potholes, with one critic describing his public persona as having “old man yells at clouds vibes”.
Engagement with Council Officers: While Franks stated he would listen to council officers but prioritize his own decisions, critics from other political backgrounds suggested that this approach could lead to ignoring professional expertise in favor of political ideology.
Franks is a tutor by profession and has previously contested the Wish ward in the May 2023 local elections, where he was also not elected.