Decision
Analysis
outcome: The recommendations were approved.
summary: The decision at stake is whether to approve recommendations regarding a licensing application for a restaurant.
topline: The Licensing Panel has decided to approve recommendations for a restaurant licensing application, despite frustrations expressed by the restaurant owner.
reason_contentious: This issue is contentious due to the restaurant owner feeling that the council's process has been frustrating, demoralising, and damaging to their business.
affected_stakeholders: ["Restaurant owner", "Council", "Residents"]
contentiousness_score: 7
political_party_relevance: There are no mentions or implications of political parties or political influence on the decision.
URL: https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7659
Decision Maker: Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)
Outcome: Recommendations Approved
Is Key Decision?: No
Is Callable In?: No
Purpose: Review application
Content: 1. The Senior Licensing Officer updated the panel on the current situation regarding the application site. They confirmed that panel was being reconvened to understand the current position. There would be no resident or environmental protection officer present. 2. The legal officer invited the applicant to make comments. 3. The restaurant owner stated that there had been no site visit to the restaurant and all the communications with the environmental protection officer had been via phone text. The applicant considered their reputation has been dragged-through-the-mud and no technical support has been offered by the council, which has been frustrating and demoralising. There has been an economic effect on the business. All delays have been down to the council. The process has been a waste of time and cost to the business. A ‘No Action’ letter should be an end to it. Spurious claims have been made against the business. The restaurant owner felt that if anyone wanted to damage a business competitor, this would be the way. 4. The chair stated that the council were bound legally to hold a review and this should be the end of the matter. 5. Following questions the panel were informed by the restaurant owner that: a. That the noise abatement process was applied with no technical support on how to resolve issues regarding noise b. The original 27 May 2026 licensing panel was held before the applicant could complete any works c. Public records were withheld when a Freedom of Information (FOI) request was submitted d. There was no need for a two-track system e. There has been a loss of revenue due to negative feedback from customers 6. The lawyer stated that they appreciated the owner’s frustrations. The original licensing panel hearing was adjourned so works could be carried out. 7. The chair requested details regarding the FOI request and was informed by the restaurant owner they were informed the request was beyond the statutory timeline. The information was not provided. 8. Councillor Pickett was informed that the residents addressed had been attended by environmental protection officers and the restaurant owner was contact by text afterwards. Summaries 9. The lawyer stated that a letter would be issued within 5 working days.
Date of Decision: July 24, 2026