Content

RE:    Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing
Panel Hearing Notification of the Determination of Panel.
 
Licensing panel
hearing held in person on Friday 10th May 2024 in
respect of the review of a premises licence in respect of premises
known as Paris House, 21 Western Road, Hove BN3 1AE.
         
The panel has considered this application for
review, relevant representations, submissions and statements, noise
diaries and other additional information, including videos. The
panel has listened carefully to all submissions made at the
hearing. The panel has had regard to the Licensing Act 2003,
Statutory Guidance and the Statement of Licensing Policy.
 
The review is brought by 4 local residents
based on the prevention of public nuisance, and prevention of crime
and disorder licensing objectives. Two representations were
received from the Licensing Authority & Environmental
Protection Team outlining their history with the premises. Nine
representations were received in support of the review, one
representation was neutral and one hundred and thirty
representations were received opposing the review. A large number
of emails were received with the same wording which was treated as
a petition in support of the premises consisting of 1646
emails.
 
The main grounds for the review are noise
disturbance caused by live and recorded music played within the
premises and noise caused by customers both inside and outside the
premises before and after 23:00 hours. Anti-social behaviour is
also complained of  from customers of
the premises. The review called for action to be taken to address
these issues either revocation or imposition of better and more
effective conditions to protect residents. A noise report was also
submitted by the applicants which proposed stricter conditions.
 
The panel heard submissions and arguments from
all parties over the course of almost eight hours. Questions were
asked of all the parties.
 
In presenting their case the applicants
highlighted the following:
 

The most relevant issue was the
noise disturbance for some since 2019. All avenues including
mediation had been exhausted. Applicants were disturbed in their
homes by the noise and found it hard to sleep. In one case their
health was adversely affected. The noise was definitely coming from
the Paris House. Representations supported this.
The attitude of the licence holders
was considered at times intimidatory and unhelpful. There was
denial of any problem.
Officers were not able to witness
noise nuisance as not able to come out when noise complained of.
Recording equipment was installed but not in correct place so could
not be used.
The noise report stated level of
music especially at night was an issue and the noise limiter not
effective and bypassed.
Conditions would permit premises to
continue without causing a nuisance.
The noise has been less since the
end of March due to the review application submitted.
Need and cultural arguments are not
relevant and cannot override the licensing  objectives.

 
The above is only a brief summary and a large
amount of written evidence was submitted with the application and
subsequently which has been considered by the panel.
 
The two officers for the responsible
authorities of licensing and environmental protection made their
representations to the panel. They stressed that a statutory noise
nuisance was not witnessed and that there was no clear evidence of
a breach of conditions or undermining of the licensing objectives.
That did not necessarily mean there was no issue. They had made
over 20 visits and the premises were not warned in advance. Updated
conditions could assist in resolving the issues.
 
In presenting their case, the solicitor for
the licence holders and licence holders highlighted the
following:
 

They do not cause a public nuisance.
Officers' visits had established this. Account had to be taken of
the area which was noisy. The evidence including that of the noise
expert was not determinative and not consistent. People living
closer were not disturbed.
There was no crime or disorder
associated with the premises. The police had made no
representation.
They wished to maintain the status
quo. Any further conditions would make the business unviable.
They were professional and
established operators who had turned premises around.
The premises were an important
cultural asset to the community. The overwhelming level of support
received in response to the review testifies to this.
The DJ conducted regular noise
patrols, took noise readings and was not exceeding the levels set
by the noise limiter which was in use all the time. Doors and
windows were closed during live and recorded music. Live music did
not take place after 22:00 hours.
The outside seating area including
the fold down benches at the side was closed before 23:00 hours and
seating disabled. People were permitted to take drinks outside on
the pavement after 23:00hours and should be allowed to continue to
do so to prevent spiking. No evidence that causing an issue and
they were monitored.

 
 
Again the panel recognises this is a brief
summary and has considered the witness statements and other
documentation provided in support of the premises.
 
The panel must take such statutory steps under
the Licensing Act in response to the review as are appropriate to
promote the licensing objectives. The panel has considered our
Statement of Licensing Policy and enforcement approach and the S182
Statutory Guidance in relation to reviews. The panel must establish
if the licensing objectives have been undermined. It must therefore
assess if there has been public nuisance and/or crime and disorder
associated with these premises. The panel appreciates that there
are strong feelings on both sides and the volume of documentation
submitted for this review is unprecedented.
 
In terms of crime and disorder, the panel does
not believe that there is any crime or disorder associated with the
premises and notes there is no representation from the police in
support of the review.
 
On balance the panel does not consider that
public nuisance is associated with these premises. Overall, taking
into account all the evidence submitted, the panel does not
consider that what is complained of amounts to a public nuisance in
the licensing sense in this location in terms of  degree, consistency or severity. In reaching this
conclusion the panel gives weight to the following factors. The
area itself is a busy, vibrant city centre location with many other
licensed and retail premises and thus a level of noise is
inevitable. The evidence of noise disturbance is not sufficiently
widespread or consistent to amount to a public nuisance in our
view; there are many representations from residents who live closer
to the premises than the applicants who are not disturbed by noise
from the premises including those who live immediately next door.
The representations from the environmental protection officer and
licensing officer do not corroborate the applicants' complaints or
establish the existence of a noise nuisance or breach of any
conditions despite over 20 visits to the premises. The noise expert
report is not conclusive as to public nuisance in the panel’s
view and we noted he faced some difficult questions from the licence holders as
to the detail of the report which raised doubts about some of
the content including the ‘heart of glass incident’.
Furthermore, we do not consider the report can be considered
independent as it was commissioned by the applicants. The panel
heard from the established DJ to the premises who was clear he made
regular noise checks and patrols and that the noise limiter was in
constant use. The doors and windows were closed during performances
of live and recorded music. It was stressed that no significant
changes had been made to the premises entertainment during the past
month when it was noted by the applicants that things have been
quieter.
 
In view of its findings the steps the panel
may take to promote the licensing objectives are limited. However,
the current licence is old and some of the conditions are not as
clear and precise as they could be. In particular that relating to
the sound limiter is very basic. Given the assurances by the DJ and
licence holders that the sound limiter was in effective operation
during DJ sets and recorded music, we consider it is appropriate
therefore to replace it with the following condition which was
discussed with the premises when they met the licensing officers
and was acceptable to them:
The installed Sound
Limiter Device shall be set and approved by an Environmental
Protection Officer from Brighton and Hove City Council. Once set,
the limiter shall be locked and tamper free. Access to this device
will be made available and adjustments made should noise complaints
be received. All recorded music and DJ sets shall be plugged into
this Sound Limiter Device to limit the music level.
As an advisory rider the panel wish it to be
stressed that the condition currently on the licence that the
outside area shall be closed and cleared by 23.00 hours relates to
the external seating areas now covered by the current pavement
licence and should also include the two benches at the side of the
premises which are within the demise of the premises. The licence
holders should continue their regular checks inside and outside the
premises to ensure that both people and entertainment noise is not
constituting a nuisance as is required under the licence.
 
 
Please note:  This determination does not take effect until
the end of the period given below for appealing against the
decision or, if the decision is appealed against, the time the
appeal is disposed of.
 
The minutes of the panel will be available on
the Council’s website under the heading ‘Council and
Democracy’.
 
Appeal Rights
(Section 181 and schedule 5 of the Licensing
Act 2003)
 
1.             
The licence holder may appeal against the decision made.
2.             
The applicant for review may appeal against the decision made.
3.             
Any person who made a relevant representation in relation to the
application may appeal against the decision made.
 
All appeals must be made to Magistrate’s
Court, Edward Street, Brighton, within 21 days of deemed delivery
of this letter. Delivery will be deemed to have been effected on
the second working day after posting.
 
Yours faithfully