Decision - Paris House Review Panel Report

RE:    Licensing Act 2003 – Licensing Panel Hearing Notification of the Determination of Panel.

Licensing panel hearing held in person on Friday 10^th 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