A Wimpy burger bar in Brighton has been refused permission to stay open until 5am.
Sussex Police, neighbours and Brighton and Hove City Council licensing officials all objected to Charlie Bhangal’s application for a late-night refreshment licence for the West Street branch of Wimpy.
They raised concerns about crime, noise and the number of similar takeaways in the area.
Mr Bhangal, 44, the director of a company called SPH Capital Limited, has owned four Wimpy restaurants around Sussex for 21 years.
His original plan was to serve takeaway customers only until 5am daily from a hatch.
After received feedback, he planned to keeping a quarter of the restaurant open for people ordering their food.
Although he did not apply for a licence to sell alcohol, businesses need a late-night refreshment licence to sell food and drink – even soft drink – after 11pm.
At a hearing on Thursday 2 July, he told a licensing panel made up of three councillors – John Hewitt, Ivan Lyons and Sam Parrott – that there would be security on site.
Sussex Police licensing officer Hannah Staplehurst told the panel that, in the past year, there had been 2,151 recorded incidents and crimes linked to West Street and surrounding roads.
The total included 300 violent crimes, 503 thefts and 125 reports of anti-social behaviour.
A council licensing official, Sarah Cornell, said that Mr Bhangal had not offered conditions that would “adequately address” the “heightened expectations” for a fast-food business in the centre of Brighton.
Mr Bhangal told the panel that there were several venues in the area and he did not think that people would congregate but would instead buy some food and head to the railway station.
The panel recognised Mr Bhangal’s experience running takeaways but none operated in the late-night economy.
The council said in its decision letter: “The panel does not consider that the applicant has thought through his application with enough care or has demonstrated proper understanding of the policy concerns in a very challenging area.
“He did not act upon guidance given by the licensing authority and the conditions and measures offered in his operating schedule are not considered strong enough.
“The panel appreciates the applicant’s willingness to change some aspects of the application but, again, these were felt to be not considered and thought through.”
