The decision follows an Eastbourne Borough Council licensing hearing last Thursday (January 6) , which saw councillors consider an application connected to a store set to open at 16 Terminus Road. The hearing had been called in light of concerns from a number of residents around street drinking in the town centre and fears the new store could exacerbate the situation if it were allowed to sell alcohol. According to the minutes of the hearing, a legal representative of applicant Anthonippillai Antonvijayarajah took issue with these objections arguing that they were made without any supporting evidence. Mr Antonvijayarajah’s representative also drew attention to the fact that no objections had been raised by Sussex Police, as long as a number of already agreed conditions were followed. These included CCTV and a limit on the strength of certain types of alcohol to be sold. Mr Antonvijayarajah’s legal representative also claimed that the representations from one of the objectors, named in the minutes as Mehrab Rahmani, had been ‘vexatious’ as he was the owner of a nearby store, which would be in competition. This claim was strongly disputed by Mr Rahmani’s own legal representative, who pointed to the level of public concern over the application. Mr Rahmani’s representative also highlighted that Mr Rahmani had included examples of anti-social behaviour in his representation. After hearing from all involved, councillors retired to consider their decision in private. In a decision notice published on Wednesday (January 12), a spokesman for the council confirmed the licence was to be granted. The notice read: “The sub-committee in making this decision considered that the premises licence, as amended, would neither add to the cumulative impact caused by licensed premises and challenges already experienced in the area, nor undermine the licensing objectives. “The members took into account and carefully considered the relevant representations received in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. “The sub committee noted that within the four representations received some matters were not relevant to its decision and some had not been proven to their satisfaction. The sub committee did not take into account the views of anyone who had not made a relevant representation within the timescales. “The sub committee gave weight in making its decision to the fact that the Police had made no representation against the application. Further, it considered that the mediated conditions would, on balance, address the concerns raised by those making relevant representations.”