A popular restaurant risks losing its drinks licence after a neighbour brought a formal review after complaining that its extractor fan was causing a “statutory nuisance”.
Rita Congiu asked Brighton and Hove City Council to review the licence for Cin Cin Italian Bar and Kitchen, in Western Road, Hove, last month.
The request was made on the grounds of the protection of children from harm and the prevention of public nuisance.
The council has since received letters in support of the business from three neighbours and a nearby business.
A council licensing panel, made up of three councillors, is due to consider next week what steps, if any, it should take to ensure the premises complies with the rules.
A report to the panel said that a noise abatement notice had been served on the business in January by the council’s environmental protection team after visits to neighbouring properties in response to complaints.
The report described a visit to one property, saying: “When we stepped inside the complainant’s residence the noise was tonal, constant, and filled the room.
“We determined that the noise from the extraction system was invasive and detrimental to health and the enjoyment of their residence.”
Ms Congiu said that a commercial extractor fan serving the restaurant had resulted in “persistent and intrusive noise” since it was installed in April 2025.
She said that the noise was a “low-pitched, sharp mechanical humming” and louder than normal traffic levels, going on for between 12 to 14 hours a day, five days a week, including Saturdays and occasionally Sundays.
Ms Congiu said: “The noise is so intrusive that I cannot use the bedroom during the day.
“I have to wait until the fan is off to go to sleep – and I cannot sleep as long as I want on Saturdays as the vent wakes me up in the morning.
“This now has a significant impact on my mental health and I am starting to suffer from headaches more often than before. It often gives me anxiety and affects my mood on a daily basis.”
She asked the council to consider suspending the licence for an unspecified duration, modifying the licence or adding new conditions. The council could go as far as to revoke the licence altogether.
Another neighbour, Hidden Hearing, the business next to Cin Cin, said that it had noticed a droning or vibration noise affecting its premises.
The business said that a quiet and stable acoustic environment was essential in its soundproofed testing rooms.
The business added: “During hearing assessments, patients have queried the unexpected background noise and expressed concern as to whether it is something they should be perceiving which can understandably undermine confidence in the testing process.
“Additionally, staff working in these conditions for extended periods have reported discomfort including headaches.”
A neighbour, believed to be Vicky Whitehead, who lives behind the restaurant and whose details were redacted by the council, supported the review and raised concerns about the effect on children as well as the wider neighbourhood.
Noise is coming into her flat even with the windows closed and soundproof curtains.
She said: “I’m highly concerned about how we will manage the temperature in our house in summer, particularly with a young child who is at risk of overheating as a baby.
“The street and garden are also unbearable to be in when the noise is very loud, as it is most evenings and increasingly in the daytime.”
Three neighbours who supported the application for a review said that there were no issues with the previous extractor fan.
The council’s environmental protection team received the first complaint about noise from the fan on Wednesday 7 May 2025, less than a month after it was installed.
People kept noise diaries and officials visited before the case was closed last September because of a lack of suitable evidence.
But when a seventh complaint was made in December and officials visited the complainant, they could hear a low droning or humming noise.
The technical officer for environmental protection, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “When we stepped inside the complainant’s residence, the noise was tonal, constant and filled the room.
“We determined that the noise from the extraction system was invasive and detrimental to health and the enjoyment of their residence.”
A second visit followed in January, after writing to the owner of the restaurant, David Toscano, 48, and then, on Monday 19 January, the council issued a noise abatement notice. Cin Cin has lodged an appeal.
Cin Cin’s licence allows for drink sales from 10am to midnight from Monday to Saturday and from noon to 11.30pm on Sundays.
The company was approached for comment.
The review is due to start at 10am next Wednesday (27 May) and is scheduled to be webcast.
Make the solving of the the noise pollution a condition of the licence. I’m sure the owners do not want to deliberately aggravate the neighbours. I often pass these premises and I don’t think that the street is affected, as one occupant claimed.
Ann expert. Maybe, just maybe you don’t know what your talking about. If you read the article you will realise the problems have only come after the replacement of the fan. So the business owner has gone for cheapest on the market no doubt. If he can charge £20 for a bit of pasta and tomato sauce I’m sure he can afford a proper extractor fan that doesn’t annoy everyone around him.
I fully comprehend that the problem stemmed from the replacement fan. What I was suggesting is a way forward that doesn’t include name-calling. I don’t understand why you would want to belittle that?
You may not hear the fan at street level but it’s clear that others do – including the hearing aid business and other residents.
It’s a shame that the restaurant doesn’t appear to have taken note of the noise abatement notice or of the previous representations to that from residents and already made adjusments
Fair comment and very reasonable. I think that the cost of challenging the order would be better spent trying to get a resolution.
If one resident complaint about a fan can potentially close a restaurant, can we hope to see 533 resident Planning Objections to the proposed £65million KALC leisure shipping container with naff all in it for children listened to? 91% of the public comments.
Licensing isn’t the same as planning.
As described with the gasworks determination, the quantity of comments is not weighed, but rather the quality of an objection.
Comply or be closed, can’t understand the debate around ignorance, as in ignorant about your place in the surrounding area you expect to live off,
There’s a reason why objectors names are redacted from the council website. I can’t understand why you have chosen to identify and name one person who should have an expectation of privacy.
Objectors’ names and supporters’ names shouldn’t be redacted. This is supposed to be an open democracy and a transparent process. The Council should not be concealing names like this. This is not China. The use of data protection rules in this way is a subversion of the Licensing Act process.
I wonder if a broad description of who the commentator is in relation to the application is a reasonable compromise? Balances the protection of the individual with the contextualisation of the commenter’s perspective.
The process is supposed to be open and transparent. You’re advocating a system more akin to the old secretive East Germany, with Kafkaesque accusers anonymously griping about their neighbours. If you want to object, our law requires you to put your name to it, but our council doesn’t seem interested in upholding the laws requiring openness, unlike most other councils.
My idea is more transparent than the current system, which is fully hidden.
This would be a step towards an more open system, whilst also balancing the protection of the individual with the contextualisation of the commenter’s perspective.
Even on BHN, we’ve seen individuals who have made attempts to doxx commenters, so the risk is a realised one.
To David Smith, there is a reason. It’s because Brighton Council gives primacy to data protection over the open licensing and planning rules. Wrongly.
I don’t understand why people move to a vibrant, commercial area of the City and then complain about the noise? Wouldn’t Seaford or Peacehaven be more be more suitable for them?
People were there first, besides that their complaint is about a NEWLY installed NOISY FAN, no problem before that happened, maybe you can try Seaford and Peacehaven, let the sea air clear your head.
Seems like nobody is a big fan of the… ahem… big fan…