A convenience store owner has had his application for a drinks licence turned down even though his lawyer tried to persuade councillors that he was not opening an off-licence.
Brighton store owner Selvaratnam Pirabaharan applied for an off-sales licence – or a licence to sell alcoholic drinks to be consumed off the premises.
But his barrister Leo Charalambides told a Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel that the Lewes Road store would not be an off-licence.
Mr Pirabaharan, 47, planned to sell fresh food at the proposed SPM Local shop at 55 Lewes Road, the hearing was told.
Mr Charalambides said that it would not be solely devoted to alcohol and it would not be an off-licence, just as a supermarket would not be considered an off-licence.
The barrister picked his words with care because the council’s licensing policy does not appear to differentiate between a premises with an off-sales licence and the type of premises known in common parlance as an off-licence.
But his line of argument failed to persuade councillors as they weighed up the future of the premises formerly known as the Panda Lounge which was previously a NatWest Bank branch.
When it was the site of Panda Lounge, the operator was licensed to serve drinks to customers seated at a table and having a meal.
But the shop is in Lewes Road where the council has stricter licensing rules because of concerns about drink-related crime, disorder and public nuisance in an area “saturated” with licensed premises.
The panel – councillors Emma Daniel, Paul Nann and Joy Robinson – said that the business would be an off-licence and there were no exceptional reasons to justify overriding the council’s licensing policy.
After a hearing on Thursday 11 January, the panel said: “The levels of crime and anti-social behaviour are significant and it was established that there were also people especially vulnerable to alcohol harm in the area.
“Although it was stated he (Mr Pirabaharan) was an experienced operator, the applicant did not address the nature of the area or the SOLP (statement of licensing policy) in making the application.
“The panel considers this shows a lack of understanding of the area and (the) policy.
“The fact that there is an existing restaurant licence at this premises does not have any benefit in the context of this application which is for a different type of premises which carries more risk.”
About time the Booze kiosks got cut down in numbers, mostly sold by people who do not drink booze
Thank goodness for that – the Lewes Road has far too many establishments selling alcohol as it is…
Yes it does seem to be a river of cheap alcohol shops. No doubt linked to the high student density. The lewes road needs variety in order to make it more desirable for a wider customer base.
Unfortunately, Lewes Road is in a self perpetuating downward spiral. When I first moved here 50 years ago it contained a full range of shops catering for the many families who lived in the area, but as families have been forced out by the ever increasing studentification the shops have changed to reflect this. Now it is no longer a desirable area to raise a family to live in as there is such a poor range of shops so more students will be moved in ad infinitum…
Biggest issue in Lewes road is not alcohol. It’s vape shops with crack pipes in the windows who happily sell capes to children. Seen it many a time. All have counterfeit cigarettes. Police are not remotely interested in dealing with it, council trading standards don’t seem to exist. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. Maybe one of the people running this paper want to see for them selves and do some actual journalism for once
Have you reported it to your Ward Councillor? What did they say or do about it?
I’m glad that the lawyer’s wordplay was not rewarded in this case.