Free Premises Licence Appeal — Licensing Act 2003 s.181 (UK)

Notice of Appeal — Premises Licence Decision (Licensing Act 2003 s.181 + Sch 5)

Magistrates' Court Statement Of Case  ·  LA Ref BH/PL/2024/00742  ·  9 June 2026

To the Justices' Clerk,

I, Marine Lounge (Brighton) Ltd, give notice of appeal under section 181 of the Licensing Act 2003 and Schedule 5 of the Act against the decision of Brighton and Hove City Council Licensing (Licensing Authority reference BH/PL/2024/00742) dated 19 May 2026 being a REVIEW determination — imposition / modification of CONDITIONS (Sch 5 para 8). I have standing to appeal as the HOLDER of the existing premises licence challenged by review — Sch 5 para 8 standing. The principal licensing objective engaged is: PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE — s.4(2)(c) LA 2003. The Schedule 5 paragraph relied on is: Sch 5 Part 1 para 8 — determination on review. CRITICAL TIMING: the 21-day appeal period under Schedule 5 paragraph 9 began on the day I was notified of the decision (21 May 2026) and expires on 11 June 2026. This notice of appeal is lodged within that period. The appeal is a full re-hearing on the merits but with appropriate weight given to the Licensing Authority's reasoning per R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31.

Appellant: Marine Lounge (Brighton) Ltd
Address: 142 Marine Parade, Brighton BN2 1AY
Telephone: 01273 605482
Email: directors@marinelounge.co.uk
Standing: the HOLDER of the existing premises licence challenged by review — Sch 5 para 8 standing

Premises address: 142 Marine Parade, Brighton BN2 1AY
Business type / licensable activities: Late-night cocktail bar and restaurant on the lower ground floor of a Regency-era seafront terrace. Licensable activities: sale of alcohol on premises Mon-Wed 12:00-00:30, Thu-Sat 12:00-02:00, Sun 12:00-23:30; regulated entertainment (recorded and live music) until 30 minutes before alcohol terminal hour; late-night refreshment until 03:00. Capacity 96 patrons. DPS: Helena Forsythe (Personal Licence number PL/06/8194 issued by BandH 2018).
Premises licence reference: BH/PL/2024/00742

Licensing Authority: Brighton and Hove City Council Licensing
LA address: Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, Hove BN3 4AH
Decision type: REVIEW determination — imposition / modification of CONDITIONS (Sch 5 para 8)
Schedule 5 paragraph: Sch 5 Part 1 para 8 — determination on review
Decision date: 19 May 2026
Date notified: 21 May 2026
21-day appeal deadline: 11 June 2026

The licensing objectives under section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 are:

   (1) PREVENTION OF CRIME AND DISORDER
   (2) PUBLIC SAFETY
   (3) PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE
   (4) PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM HARM

The principal objective engaged in this appeal: PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE — s.4(2)(c) LA 2003. The Licensing Authority must promote the objectives in any decision; conditions / restrictions / refusals must be APPROPRIATE for the promotion of one or more of the objectives. A decision unsupported by clear engagement of an objective is vulnerable to a Hope and Glory [2011] EWCA Civ 31 challenge.

On 19 May 2026 the Brighton and Hove Licensing Sub-Committee determined a review brought by Environmental Health following five noise complaints over a 9-week period (March-May 2026). The Sub-Committee imposed three new conditions: (1) cease all amplified music at 22:30 Sunday-Wednesday (4 hours earlier than current); (2) close external smoking shelter at 22:00; (3) cease alcohol sales 30 minutes before terminal hour. The appellant relies on three grounds: (a) the conditions are DISPROPORTIONATE to the engagement of objective 3 (public nuisance) — the complaints originate from a single new resident at the property immediately above the bar (occupied since January 2026, with full knowledge of the established 24-year licensed use); (b) the Sub-Committee departed from the s.182 Guidance without good reason — specifically the guidance on cumulative impact + late-night refreshment in established entertainment corridors; (c) the Sub-Committee failed to give weight to the appellant's undertaking to install electronic noise limiter and revised noise management plan offered at the hearing. R (Hope and Glory) [2011] EWCA Civ 31 + Bristol CC v Somerfield [2007] EWHC 1080 (proportionality) relied on.

The appellant addresses each of the four statutory licensing objectives in turn. The Licensing Authority must promote the objectives; the decision under appeal is tested against whether it was APPROPRIATE for that promotion — per R (Hope and Glory) [2011] EWCA Civ 31 and the s.182 statutory guidance.

(A) OBJECTIVE 1 — PREVENTION OF CRIME AND DISORDER. Engages: licensed premises management; sale of alcohol to drunk persons; door supervision; CCTV; police engagement; SAPS / Pubwatch participation; refusal-to-serve protocols. Appellant's position: No engagement of objective 1 (crime and disorder) in the LA review. Sussex Police made NO representation at the review hearing. The premises has operated for 24 years with no crime / disorder findings. Pubwatch active member; SIA-registered door supervisors on Thursday-Saturday after 21:00 (capacity-driven). No relevance to the appellate matter.

(B) OBJECTIVE 2 — PUBLIC SAFETY. Engages: capacity; fire safety; emergency egress; first aid; SIA-licensed door supervision; safe drinking environment. Appellant's position: No engagement of objective 2 (public safety) in the LA review. Fire risk assessment last updated November 2025 (East Sussex Fire and Rescue inspection 14 January 2026 - satisfactory). First-aid trained staff (3 BTEC L3 first aiders). No relevance to the appellate matter.

(C) OBJECTIVE 3 — PREVENTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE. Engages: noise (amplified music; patron noise outside premises); litter; smoking shelters; queuing management; closing procedures; deliveries / waste collection times. Per LB Newham v Khatun [2010] EWHC 2024 — public nuisance objective is broader than common-law nuisance, encompasses anti-social impact on residents. Appellant's position: Objective 3 (public nuisance) is the principal — and only — objective engaged. The complainant is the leaseholder of flat 142a Marine Parade (immediately above the premises), occupied since January 2026. The complainant's 5 complaints relate to amplified music in the period 22:30-00:30. Appellant's evidence: (a) acoustic survey by Hayne Tickner Associates 12 May 2026 records bedroom levels at 142a peaking at 33 dB(A) LAeq during normalised peak music — within WHO bedroom guideline of 35 dB(A); (b) the established lawful use of the premises since 2002; (c) the prior 24-year complaints history shows ZERO substantiated noise complaints from any resident of 142a (4 previous lessees); (d) the appellant offered at the review hearing — and is willing to formalise as a condition — installation of a SoundCheck Pro electronic noise limiter set to 78 dB(A) measured at the bar speaker position with a 1-minute averaging period; (e) the appellant has reviewed and offered an updated Noise Management Plan with revised closing procedures and supervised dispersal. Per LB Newham v Khatun [2010] EWHC 2024 (Admin), public nuisance under the LA 2003 is broader than common-law nuisance but requires a substantive nuisance impact — not mere personal preference of a single new resident.

(D) OBJECTIVE 4 — PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM HARM. Engages: age verification (Mandatory Conditions Order Challenge 25); under-18 admission; entertainment classification; child-protection policy; designated child-free hours. Appellant's position: No engagement of objective 4 (protection of children from harm). Premises is over-18s only after 19:00 (existing condition); Challenge 25 in force; SIA door checks. No relevance to the appellate matter.

(E) PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE. Per Bristol CC v Somerfield Stores [2007] EWHC 1080 (Admin), the Licensing Authority response must be PROPORTIONATE to the engagement of the objective. Disproportionate refusal / revocation / conditions are themselves a ground for appeal. The appellant invites the Mag Court to test the LA decision against this proportionality standard.

Objectives narrative:
The LA decision engaged ONLY objective 3. Per Bristol CC v Somerfield Stores [2007] EWHC 1080 (Admin), the response must be PROPORTIONATE to the engaged objective. The imposed conditions reduce the appellant's Sunday-Wednesday music hours by 4 hours (75% reduction in music hours those nights) for ONE objective with one complainant on objective evidence within published thresholds — manifestly disproportionate.

(A) STATUTORY APPEAL ROUTE — SCHEDULE 5 LA 2003. Schedule 5 sets out the appeal routes for licensing decisions:
   Part 1 (premises licences) — paras 1, 4, 5 (refusal of new / variation / DPS variation), para 8 (review determination including revocation, suspension and conditions modification);
   Part 2 (club premises certificates);
   Part 3 (personal licences);
   Part 4 (Temporary Event Notices);
   Part 5 (closure orders / EMRO);
   Part 6 (counter-notices on TENs).

(B) PARAGRAPH RELIED ON IN THIS APPEAL. Sch 5 Part 1 para 8 — determination on review.

(C) s.182 STATUTORY GUIDANCE. The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance to Licensing Authorities under section 182 LA 2003. The current Home Office Guidance addresses: the four objectives; statement of licensing policy; representations and review procedures; conditions; cumulative impact assessment; late-night refreshment; review of premises licence including review-on-petition. The Mag Court takes the Guidance into account; departure from the Guidance by the LA without good reason is a ground for appeal in itself.

(D) DEPARTURE FROM s.182 GUIDANCE. The Sub-Committee departed from the s.182 Guidance in three respects: (i) paragraph 14.51 (Guidance) — the policy preference for ELECTRONIC NOISE LIMITERS as a less-restrictive measure was not engaged despite the appellant's explicit offer; (ii) paragraph 14.59 (Guidance) — the cumulative impact / existing-use protection where the licensed use predates the residential occupation by 22 years was not addressed; (iii) paragraph 14.65 (Guidance) — the preference for behavioural / operational conditions over hour-based restrictions was not engaged. The Sub-Committee minutes record no reasoning departing from the Guidance on these three points — a Hope and Glory [2011] EWCA Civ 31 reasons inadequacy.

(E) 21-DAY DEADLINE — SCH 5 PARA 9. The appeal must be commenced by giving notice to the Justices' Clerk within 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified. In this case the appellant was notified on 21 May 2026; the deadline expires on 11 June 2026. This notice is lodged within the period.

Grounds narrative:
The Sub-Committee minutes are 4 lines long and record only the outcome — no explanation of why the appellant's offered electronic limiter was rejected or how the imposed conditions are appropriate to the engaged objective. Per South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 (cited in licensing context in Daniel Thwaites [2008] EWHC 838), the reasons must enable the appellant to know why it lost on the principal issues. The reasons here are inadequate.

(A) THE LEADING AUTHORITY. R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 is the leading Court of Appeal authority on how the Mag Court should approach a Licensing Act 2003 appeal. The case concerned a review-driven licensing decision on noise nuisance at a Soho public house.

(B) DE NOVO HEARING. The appeal under s.181 is a full re-hearing on the merits — NOT a judicial review. The Mag Court substitutes its own decision for that of the Licensing Authority. The Court of Appeal in Hope and Glory affirmed that the Mag Court should consider the evidence afresh, including any new evidence not before the LA, and may reach a different conclusion on the facts.

(C) WEIGHT TO LA REASONS. However — and this is the key Hope and Glory point — the Mag Court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the Licensing Authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament chose to place responsibility for such decisions on local authorities. The weight given to the LA reasons depends on:
   (i) the FULLNESS AND CLARITY of the LA reasons;
   (ii) the NATURE OF THE ISSUES; and
   (iii) the EVIDENCE GIVEN on the appeal.

(D) "WRONG" THRESHOLD. Before the Mag Court may interfere with the LA decision, it must be satisfied the LA decision was WRONG. "Wrong" is a holistic standard wider than judicial-review Wednesbury but narrower than pure substitution — it asks whether, taking the LA reasoning into account, the Mag Court would itself have come to a different decision on the merits.

(E) LA REASONING SUMMARY. The LA Sub-Committee minutes record: "Members considered the representations and the evidence. Members found that the premises is causing public nuisance. The conditions are imposed to address the engagement of objective 3." No further reasoning. The Environmental Health representation relied on the 5 complaints and an EHO single-visit log (visited 18 April 2026 21:00-22:30 - no objective measurement taken). No expert acoustic evidence was offered by EH.

(F) LA REASONING REBUTTAL. The LA reasoning is materially inadequate. (i) "Causing public nuisance" is asserted without engagement with the appellant's acoustic evidence (Hayne Tickner Associates 12 May 2026 - bedroom levels within WHO bedroom guideline). (ii) "Conditions appropriate" is asserted without proportionality analysis - no consideration of the appellant's offered electronic limiter or revised NMP. (iii) No engagement with the established-use / new-resident context per s.182 Guidance paragraph 14.59. (iv) No engagement with the 24-year complaint-free history. Per Hope and Glory [2011] EWCA Civ 31, the Mag Court takes account of the LA reasons - but their inadequacy here means little weight attaches. The Mag Court is invited to re-hear the evidence and substitute its own decision.

(G) INTERESTED PARTY REPRESENTATION. Per Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614 (cited in Hope and Glory), the appellate court takes into account representations made by interested parties at the LA stage. Where police / Environmental Health / residents' group representations were made, the Mag Court considers their weight and any change in circumstance since the LA decision.

(H) WESTMINSTER v MIDDLESEX [2002] — PARALLEL EPA ROUTE. Westminster CC v Middlesex Crown Court [2002] EWHC 1104 (Admin) clarifies that the Licensing Act and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 statutory nuisance regimes operate as PARALLEL routes — the LA cannot use EPA s.80 to override a premises licence determination; review under s.51 LA 2003 is the proper route.

Evidence framework narrative:
The appellant will call: Helena Forsythe (DPS - factual evidence on operation); Hayne Tickner Associates (acoustic expert - written report + oral testimony); Pubwatch chair (industry / Pubwatch participation evidence). The appellant invites Sussex Police to confirm (in writing) the absence of crime / disorder findings. Estimated 1-day Mag Court hearing.

(A) MANDATORY CONDITIONS. Every premises licence is subject to mandatory conditions imposed by statute and the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order — including the age verification policy (Challenge 25), pricing promotions restrictions, and door supervision where the licence authorises the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises after 23:00. The appellant's position on the mandatory conditions: The appellant accepts and complies in full with all mandatory conditions under the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order - including Challenge 25 age verification, mandatory pricing restrictions, and the door supervision requirement after 23:00.

(B) DESIGNATED PREMISES SUPERVISOR (DPS). Where the licence authorises the sale of alcohol, the licence must specify a DPS — a personal licence holder responsible for day-to-day operation. Variation of DPS is itself appealable under Sch 5 para 5. The appellant's DPS arrangements are explained in the conditions narrative.

(C) LA-IMPOSED CONDITIONS UNDER CHALLENGE. The three new conditions imposed at the 19 May 2026 review: (1) "All amplified music shall cease at 22:30 on Sunday-Wednesday" — reducing music hours from current 00:30 to 22:30 = 4-hour Mon-Wed reduction (75% reduction); (2) "The external smoking shelter shall close at 22:00 every day" — currently closes 30 mins before terminal hour; (3) "Alcohol sales shall cease 30 minutes before terminal hour every day" — currently sales continue until terminal hour. Conditions (1) and (3) materially reduce trade Mon-Wed; the appellant estimates 35-40% Mon-Wed revenue reduction.

(D) PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE — BRISTOL CC v SOMERFIELD [2007]. Per Bristol City Council v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2007] EWHC 1080 (Admin), conditions must be proportionate to the engagement of the licensing objective. Disproportionate conditions — e.g. excessive restriction on hours; capacity below operational viability; specification of named contractors — are vulnerable to appellate substitution.

(E) PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODIFICATION. The appellant offers — and asks the Mag Court to substitute as conditions — the following: (a) install SoundCheck Pro PRO-200 electronic noise limiter at the bar speaker position, set to 78 dB(A) LAeq 1-minute average, with monthly calibration log available to the LA on 48-hour notice; (b) implement revised Noise Management Plan (draft enclosed) including supervised dispersal between terminal hour and 30 minutes after; (c) maintain a noise complaint log available to the LA; (d) at the appellant's expense, install acoustic vibration damping to the suspended ceiling shared with flat 142a (quoted £12,400 by Acoustic Brighton Ltd). The appellant submits these substituted conditions promote objective 3 more effectively than the LA-imposed hour reductions, at substantially lower commercial impact, consistent with the s.182 Guidance preference for behavioural / operational conditions.

(F) DANIEL THWAITES — DUTY TO ENGAGE. Per R (Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral BC Magistrates' Court [2008] EWHC 838 (Admin), in review-driven licence revocation / suspension cases, the Mag Court must engage with the LA's underlying reasoning — bare conclusion is insufficient. The appellant invites the Mag Court to engage with the proportionality and necessity of the LA-imposed conditions.

Conditions narrative:
Per Daniel Thwaites [2008] EWHC 838 - the Mag Court engages with the underlying LA reasoning. Here the LA reasoning does not justify the imposed conditions when measured against the proportionality standard in Bristol CC v Somerfield [2007] EWHC 1080. The appellant's offered electronic limiter + NMP + vibration damping addresses the engaged objective at materially lower restriction.

The appellant encloses with this notice of appeal:

   (a) a copy of the Licensing Authority decision notice dated 19 May 2026 (LA ref BH/PL/2024/00742);
   (b) this statement of case;
   (c) the original application form / variation form / review papers as relevant;
   (d) the operating schedule and proposed (or current) conditions;
   (e) representations received at the LA hearing (police / EH / interested parties);
   (f) the minutes of the LA Licensing Sub-Committee hearing (where available);
   (g) supporting evidence (e.g. noise management plan; risk assessment; CCTV plan; staff training records; Premises History);
   (h) skeleton argument citing Hope and Glory [2011] EWCA Civ 31 + s.182 Guidance + relevant authorities.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,