APPENDIX B5 A1                              

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF PARIS HOUSE LICENCE

APPLICANTS’ SKELETON ARGUMENT

This document sets out the issues before the Licensing Panel (“LP“).

Reference to the “PLH“ is to the  Premises Licence Holder.

1. It is submitted that the LP has to decide on the evidence before it whether either of the following two licensing objectives has been promoted in accordance with the Act:-

      (a) the prevention of crime and disorder, including antisocial behaviour.

      (b) the prevention of public nuisance.     Submissions J 1.3

2. The LP makes its decision on the balance of probabilities.  Submissions J 1.3

3. If the LP decides the Applicants have not proved their case on either of the licensing objectives

    to that standard, it should dismiss the application. Submissions J 1.4

4. If the LP decides the Applicants have proved their case to the requisite standard on either or

    both of the objectives it can take action as outlined in the Applicants’ Submissions J 1.5

5. The Applicants’ closing submissions deal with two possible scenarios: –

      (a) Revocation of the licence ( or the consideration of a suspension of it or a

           warning to the PLH re its future conduct). 

Submissions L 1.15 - 1.22; B 1.32: and App31 App A respectively

           OR

      (b) If the licence is to continue, the imposition of conditions to better protect the Applicants

           and other residents from the problems which have led to this application.

Submissions L 1.23 - 1.27

6. The Applicants submit that the three steps referred to in para 5(a) above merit consideration

    due to the attitude of the PLH throughout the history of the operation of the PH premises as

 revealed in the documents submitted in support of this application.

     For ease of reference and based solely on the evidence, a document entitled “Paris House – 

     PLH and Staff’s Approach to Complaints“ has been prepared and submitted with this

     Argument.

7. The issue of conditions in para 5(b) above  is covered in the report of Mr Richard Vivian in his

    recent noise impact assessment, a copy of which has been sent to BHCC for the LP’s

 consideration.

8. Ancillary matters

  (a) The ONLY matters relevant to the LP’s decision are the licensing objectives and whether

         they have been properly promoted or not.

        ( para 9.44 s.182 Guidance - Submissions B 1.29).

         Thus,”need” ( for premises to be licensed) is specifically stated to be irrelevant in BHCC’s

         SOLP at para 3.1.1 and in keeping with the s182 guidance.

         Much of the evidence so far produced by the PLH relates to “the cultural value of the

         premises”; its importance as a “live music venue”; and representations made in support of

         the PH and its PLH (designated as “A” representations by BHCC for the purposes of this

         review) as well as a petition.

         Many of these representers do not live in the neighbourhood and do not address the impact

         of these premises on the local community.Very few make ANY reference  to the

         promotion of the licensing objectives AT ALL and are more concerned with the writer’s own

         enjoyment when visiting the PH.

         As such ,it is submitted that this evidence is NOT RELEVANT to the issues to be

         decided and should be  COMPLETELY ignored by the LP in its deliberations.

         It should also be noted that a few of these “A” representations do make relevant comments

         in favour of the Applicants’ case even though  they wish the PH to continue.    

It cannot be stressed enough that this is NOT a case of trying to prevent live music

        being played or people from enjoying themselves.

        It IS a case of noise nuisance caused by  both music and customers and their

        antisocial behaviour disturbing residents on a regular basis and for a very long time

        and in breach of the licensing objectives in para.1 above.

    (b) It is for the LP to assess the credibility of the evidence before it and to decide what weight

         to give  it .In review cases there is no need for any witness’s evidence to be corroborated

         or supported by anyone else.If it so decides, the LP can rely on the evidence of just one

         witness in these proceedings.

        In this case it is submitted that there is a significant amount of corroboration for the

        Applicants’ case from a variety of sources including their individual evidence, the FOIA

        information, the APPS produced in support of the Applicants’ submissions and the

        information provided in “B” representations arising from this review and made  in support of

        it.

        In addition, there is the independent expert evidence of Mr Vivian who visited the PH and

        the surrounding area on an unusually quiet night only to note a breach in a licensing

        condition re the noise limiter which was being bypassed by other equipment after 2300

        He also witnessed noise generated from the premises and audible roughly 150 metres away

        after 0100.Both these facts are supportive of the evidence of the Applicants and other

        residents.

                                                                                                            C.C.Hallsworth

                                                                                                                                    3 May 2024.