Civic Signal GUEST
ROWS
API PATHS
Docs Sign in
Browsing as a guest. A free key raises the rate limit.

Decision - The Pipeline Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)

Brighton and Hove Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions) Decided 9 Jul 2024 for determination GET /api/coverage
Decision maker
Licensing Panel (Licensing Act 2003 Functions)
Report author
Corinne Hardcastle
Published
27 Sep 2024
Reference
7301

As published

the council's own words, unedited

Application for a New Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003

Licensing Panel hearing held on Tuesday 9 July virtually in respect of the application for a premises licence for Pipeline 6 Little East Street, Brighton BN1 1HT The panel has read all the papers including the report and relevant representations and listened to the submissions put forward at the hearing. The panel has also had regard to the council's Statement of Licensing Policy (SOLP) and the section 182 Licensing Act 2003 statutory guidance. The application is for a variation of an existing premises licence. It seeks to amend the first- floor plan to show the stage as a permanent fixture and to remove conditions related to the provision of food. The premises are situated within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA). This is an area of the city centre which is causing problems of crime and disorder and public nuisance. The special policy will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The effect of this special policy is that applications for variations of premises licences which are likely to add to the existing Cumulative Impact will be refused following relevant representations. This presumption can be rebutted by the applicant if they can show that their application will have no negative Cumulative Impact. A "matrix" approach to licensing decisions has been adopted by the council in its SOLP. It sets out a framework of what the licensing authority would like to see within its area and gives an indication of the likelihood of success to any applicant. The matrix indicates that within the Cumulative Impact Area, applications for pubs are likely to be refused, restaurants are acceptable until midnight, and Non-alcohol lead venues will receive favourable consideration. Two representations were received from Responsible Authorities – the Police and the Licensing Authority. They raised concerns relating to Prevention of Crime and Disorder, Cumulative Impact, Public Safety, and Prevention of Public Nuisance. We heard from the Police representative that:- i) the premises originally had the benefit of a restaurant licence. By 2015, the premises were trading as Northern Lights, but in that year following concerns a review of the licence was initiated. As a result, new conditions were added to the licence (see pages 41 to 43 of the agenda.) Experience has shown that the licence was confusing and a refresh was long overdue. ii) Pipeline Entertainments Limited took over the premises in 2017. Mr Evrenos is the sole director of the company. Since that time the premises has largely operated as a music venue. iii) In February 2024 numerous breaches of the licence conditions were identified. To his credit, Mr Evrenos has consulted the Police and the Licensing Authority to try to negotiate appropriate licence conditions to suit his desired style of operation. iv) The Police are concerned that the removal of conditions relating to the provision of food will change the nature of the premises. That said, the Police are supportive of grass roots music venues and agreement has largely been reached over conditions which are reproduced on pages 54-64 of the agenda. v) The sticking point is the hours of operation, especially the hours for the supply of alcohol after live music performances. vi) There was no objection to the amendment to the Licence Plan, to show the stage. We were told that there has been minimal Police interaction with the premises for 7 years, although East Street is notorious. The Licensing Authority representative expanded upon her objection, and advised that breaches of the licence had been identified pre-Covid, but had not been followed up. In his presentation, and in answer to questions we were told by Mr Evrenos that: He had taken over problematic premises, and had had regard to the 2015 Review Panel's decision. He had tried to promote the licensing objectives, and avoid complaints. He was on good terms with neighbours. There is a demand for live music. Pipeline is about musicians playing music. There is no dancing, and no DJs. Whilst he is usually at the premises 4 or 5 days a week, he was not present at the February 2024 visit. Unfortunately none of the 5 staff present on that occasion knew where paperwork was kept. He was working to ensure that similar issues would not recur. The provision of food in accordance with the existing licence is a struggle. He had paid for 2 door supervisors for 7 years to do nothing. Headline acts traditionally play a 22.00 to 23.00 hours slot. If alcohol sales were to cease at 23.00 hours as requested by the Police, the musicians could not unwind with a drink afterwards. Going forward, safety will be a priority. To date, there had been no spiking problems, no fights and no ambulance calls. The panel has considered this application on its merits. It welcomes the applicant's active engagement with the Police and Licensing Authority, and the agreed conditions. We are concerned about the number of breaches of the licence identified in February 2024, but we cannot ignore the

Parsed from the document

gpt-5.6-luna-2026-07-09 · 577/256 tokens · 3567ms · parsed 9 Sep 2026 15:33
Everything below was read out of a PDF by a model It is useful and it is not authoritative. The document it came from is linked in the rail, and where the two disagree the document is right.

The document is titled “The Pipeline - Thomas Evrenos Hearing Statement - PL01”. No substantive decision, recommendation, financial information or organisational details are included in the provided text.

Financial impact
none stated

Precedents

not built
"Decided elsewhere" is not built Finding the same decision in other councils needs semantic matching over decision text, which is part of the search rewrite. Until then, the council's own decisions list is the way through.
Documents
Who voted
Not extracted
Recorded votes are published in the minutes but we do not yet parse them into a direction per councillor. This page will not guess at one.
Watch this
Not built
Following a decision would ask you for a channel — email or webhook — at the point of following, with no default. Neither channel exists yet.
GET /api/coverage