Licensing Sub Committee minutes

Refused · A decision has been taken, against.

The Licensing Sub Committee considered an application for a premises licence for Forever Food Mart, Unit 4 7-8 Harold Place, Hastings, submitted by V&K Private Limited. p6

The Committee concluded that the Applicant had not shown that granting the licence would avoid adding to cumulative impact in the area. p11

The Sub-Committee refused the application for a premises licence. p9

The Applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of receiving the written decision dated 12 August 2026. p12

1 further sentence of this summary was held back by verification and is not shown. We only publish claims that survived checking against the cited passages.

Show the 4 passages this is based on

• p65. Application for a Premises Licence with representations for Forever Food Mart, Unit 4 7-8 Harold Place, Hastings. TN34 1JA Report of the Licensing Lead Stewart Bryant, Licensing Lead, introduced the report and outlined the application for a premises licence submitted by V&K Private Limited in respect of Forever Food Mart, 7-8 Howard Place, Hastings. The Sub-Committee was advised that a previous application for an off-sales premises licence at the premises had been refused in January 2026, with concerns raised regarding the applicant’s understanding of the locality, the Cumulative Impact Policy, and the potential impact on the licensing objectives. Members were informed that the current application represented a fresh application and should be determined on its own merits, having regard to the licensing history of the premises, the representations received from Sussex Police and the Licensing Authority, the Council’s policy framework, and the statutory licensing objectives. In response to a question Mr Bryant clarified that evidence regarding the reduction in public disorder following the surrender of the previous premises licence was contained within the Sussex Police representations. Statement from the Applicant Mr Thakkar, the Applicant, addressed the Sub-Committee in support of the application. The Applicant acknowledged the refusal of a previous application in January 2026 and advised that the concerns raised by the Sub-Committee and responsible authorities had been carefully considered. The Applicant outlined the measures introduced since that refusal, including enhanced management controls, staff training, CCTV monitoring, Challenge 25 procedures, incident and refusals registers, and a detailed local risk assessment tailored to the premises and its location within the Cumulative Impact Zone. The Applicant advised that alcohol sales would form a secondary element of the business and emphasised a commitment to responsible retailing.
• p9Sussex Police further highlighted concerns regarding the practical operation of the premises, including the potential for proxy purchasing, theft, refusals of sale and the likelihood of incidents requiring police intervention. In response to Members’ questions, Sussex Police provided further information regarding patterns of street drinking within the town centre, the challenges of enforcing alcohol-related offending, the impact on local residents and businesses, and the limitations of conditions in addressing the risks identified in this particular location. Sussex Police maintained its objection and invited the Sub-Committee to conclude that the Applicant had not rebutted the presumption arising from the Cumulative Impact Policy. The Chair invited those present to sum-up. The Applicant and Responsible Authority representatives added nothing further. The Licensing Lead reminded Members that any decision departing from policy would need to be properly justified. The Sub-Committee adjourned to deliberate at 12:17 and recovened at 13:02 when the Chair announced that: The Sub-Committee REFUSED the application for a Premises Licence. Reasons for the decision The principal issue before the Sub-Committee was whether the Applicant had demonstrated that the grant of a new premises licence for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises would not add to the cumulative impact already experienced within the Hastings Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone ("CIZ") and would promote the licensing objectives. The premises is situated within the Council's designated Cumulative Impact Zone. Relevant representations were received from Sussex Police and the Licensing Authority. In those circumstances, the Council's Cumulative Impact Policy is engaged, and it is for the Applicant to demonstrate that the grant of the licence would not add to cumulative impact and would not undermine the licensing objectives.
• p11Whilst these measures were welcomed, they did not adequately address the fundamental concern identified by both Responsible Authorities and the previous Licensing Sub-Committee, namely the risk associated with the reintroduction of an off-sales alcohol outlet at this location. The Committee noted that the previous Licensing Sub-Committee expressly considered whether strengthened conditions, including restrictions on single-can sales, multipack sales and alcohol strength restrictions, could sufficiently mitigate the risks associated with the premises and concluded that they could not. Having carefully considered the evidence before it, the Committee reached the same conclusion. The Committee accepted that the Applicant was not responsible for the historic difficulties associated with the premises and that the premises is now under different ownership and management. However, the issue before the Committee was not responsibility for past events, but whether the grant of a new premises licence at this location would be likely to undermine the licensing objectives in the future. Having considered all the evidence, the Committee was not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated that the grant of the licence would not add to cumulative impact within the Cumulative Impact Zone. The Committee therefore concluded that the Applicant had failed to rebut the presumption arising from the Council's Cumulative Impact Policy. The Committee further concluded that there remained a real risk that the reintroduction of alcohol sales at this location would contribute to the return of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour, street drinking, crime and public nuisance. The Committee carefully considered whether the concerns identified could be adequately addressed through the imposition of conditions. However, for the reasons set out above, it was not satisfied that conditions would be effective to promote the licensing objectives in the circumstances of this case.
• p12Accordingly, the Committee concluded that refusal was the only appropriate and proportionate step available to promote the prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance objectives. Human Rights and Equality Considerations The Committee recognised that refusal interferes with the Applicant's ability to operate the business as proposed and has considered the Applicant's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Committee also had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and considered whether refusal would result in any disproportionate impact. Having balanced the Applicant's interests against the evidence-based risks identified by the Responsible Authorities and the need to promote the licensing objectives, the Committee was satisfied that refusal was a justified, appropriate and proportionate response. Right of Appeal The Applicant has the right to appeal this decision to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of receipt of the written decision dated 12 August 2026.