Open Hastings Search or ask⌘K

Licensing Sub Committee minutes

Committee minutes · Licensing Sub Committee · Thu 8 Jan 2026 · Hastings Borough Council

Read the council's document ↗

In plain English

Each sentence was checked against the passage it cites; how the checking works.

Refused · A decision has been taken, against.

The premises is in the Council's Cumulative Impact Zone, where policy presumes refusal of new alcohol licences unless the applicant shows the licence would not add to existing problems in the area. p7

The Licensing Sub Committee refused the application. p20

The Committee's reasons included the risk of a return of alcohol-related crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in the area, and a finding that the Applicant had not shown the licence would not add to the cumulative impact already experienced there. p21

2 further sentences of this summary were held back by verification and are not shown. We only publish claims that survived checking against the cited passages.

Show the 3 passages this is based on
  • p7The premises was located within the Council’s Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), where policy presumed refusal of new licences unless an applicant could demonstrate that their application will not add to the current reasons for the CIZ. Despite guidance having been provided and an initial refusal of the application, the Applicant resubmitted a further application. It was considered that the Applicant had still not addressed the requirements of the Cumulative Impact Policy, nor provided any risk assessment setting out how they would mitigate or prevent cumulative impact. The Licensing Authority were aware of the premises’ long history of licence reviews, breaches, and issues involving street drinking, antisocial behaviour, and crime and disorder in the surrounding area. Those issues had ceased since the premises closed. Concerns were raised about the Applicant’s understanding of licensing compliance and policy requirements, particularly given the persistent difficulties with previous operators at the same location. Accordingly, the Licensing Authority expressed serious reservations about the Applicant’s ability to manage a premises licence responsibly. The premises had previously been identified as a significant source of alcohol-related issues, including sales to individuals associated with street drinking and antisocial behaviour. When the licence was surrendered, those problems diminished, and local police reported a marked improvement in behaviour and in the general atmosphere of the area, describing the area as more welcoming for customers and businesses. The Lead Practitioner- Licensing reported that both the Licensing Authority and Sussex Police recommended refusal of the application. However, if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the licence contrary to policy, they were advised that robust conditions would be required, similar to those previously imposed, including restrictions on container size and alcohol strength.
  • p20The Applicant explained that Mr Patel had experience managing off?license premises, whereas he himself was new to the business and did not yet hold a personal licence. The Lead Practitioner- Licensing cautioned that this meant the Applicant could not currently act as DPS and that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant the licence, they might expect a condition requiring a personal licence holder to be on the premises at all times. This could not be fulfilled by the Applicant at present and would place a significant burden on Mr Patel, who lived in London. The Applicant responded that Mr Patel would oversee the business until matters were fully settled and that they planned to employ at least one additional member of staff. He explained that the long opening hours meant that two people would be always needed on the premises to prevent shoplifting and manage any issues. The Lead Practitioner- Licensing acknowledged the operational points raised but reiterated that the Licensing Authority’s concern related to the cumulative impact of alcohol sales in the area, the likelihood of police involvement when incidents occurred and the unclear arrangements for day?to?day management of the premises. The Sub-Committee retired to deliberate at 11:50 and reconvened at 12:10 to announce its decision. Decision We have carefully considered the application for a new premises licence at Forever Food and Wine, Unit 4, 7-8 Harold Place, Hastings. We have taken into account the representations made by Sussex Police, the Licensing Authority, and the interested person as well as the submissions and documents presented by the applicant and Mr Patel. Our decision is guided by the Licensing Act 2003, s182 guidance, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Our decision is to refuse the application.
  • p21Reasons The central concern in this application is the likelihood of a return of alcohol-related crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour, and associated public nuisance, in the immediate vicinity, fuelled by alcohol purchased from licensed premises at this address. The Premises is situated within the Council’s Cumulative Impact Zone (“CIZ”). Relevant representations were made. In those circumstances the Council’s special policy engages a rebuttable presumption that applications for new authorisations for the sale of alcohol will normally be refused unless the Applicant demonstrates that the grant of the licence would not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced in the area. We were not satisfied, on the evidence, that the Applicant rebutted that presumption. We attached weight to the written representation of Scott Johnson (interested person) describing criminal and anti-social activity in the locality and his experience of it in connection with alcohol sales from previous licensed premises at this location. Although he was not available to be questioned, we considered his account to be credible and consistent with the documented history and concerns set out by the Responsible Authorities. We therefore accepted his evidence as part of the overall evidential picture. We also attached significant weight to the Responsible Authority evidence. The representations of Sussex Police were not contested and were consistent with the Licensing Authority’s concerns.

Places and organisations it names

Other papers for this meeting

The council's document is the record; this page collects what Open Hastings knows about it. If something here is wrong, it is corrected in place and logged on the about page.