Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 20 January 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Sub-Committee Mr P High(Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Officers in Attendance:
1
2
3
Mr N Coppack
Public Protection Manager, Licensing Enforcement
Officer, Legal Advisor and Committee Officer
(Regulatory).
Environmental Protection Manager and Senior
Environmental Protection Officer (for minute 9)
APOLOGIES
None received.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
4
None.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
5
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/150021015)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicant had applied for a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North
Norfolk. His DBS report had raised issues which required further consideration. She drew attention to the historic nature of the applicant’s convictions. She outlined the SubCommittee’s options for determining this application.

6
The applicant presented his case. He explained the circumstances of his historic convictions, which occurred 29 years ago, for which he accepted full responsibility. He outlined his employment history, which involved a large amount of responsibility. He stated that he was married with children and was a good, law-abiding citizen but accepted he had a history.
The Sub-Committee considered that it was not necessary to adjourn to consider its decision as hav ing heard the applicant’s case, Members were satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/150030890)
Present: Applicant
A copy of the applicant’s driving licence, which had been omitted from the papers, was circulated to the Committee.
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicant had applied for a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North
Norfolk. His DBS report had raised issues which required further consideration. She drew attention to the lengthy but historic nature of the applicant’s convictions. She outlined the Sub-Committee’s options for determining this application.
The applicant presented his case. He explained that he currently worked as an escort for children with learning difficulties. He now wanted a less physical job and considered taxi driving to be ideal. He had raised one family and was now raising another family.
The applicant answered Members’ questions concerning his historic offending, his family circumstances and his current employment. He explained that his historic offending stopped when he married and that his conviction for driving with excess alcohol had occurred when his marriage broke down. He had committed no offences since then.
The Sub-Committee considered that it was not necessary to adjourn to consider its decision as having heard the applicant’s case, Members were satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.

7 Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/150026539)
Present: Applicant & prospective employer
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicant had applied for a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North
Norfolk. He had previously held a licence which had been revoked, and his
DBS report had raised issues which required further consideration. She explained the reason for revocation of the previous licence and stated that the applicant had a right to reapply. She outlined the SubCommittee’s options for determining this application.
The applicant presented his case. He explained in detail the circumstances of the incident involving drugs which had resulted in the revocation of his licence. He had made a silly mistake which he wished he had not done. He was currently unemployed and needed to get back into work.
The applicant’s prospective employer stated that prior to losing his licence, the applicant was one of his better drivers. The applicant had made a stupid mistake. He stated that he would not have attended the meeting if he did not think the applicant was up to the job.
The Sub-Committee and the Legal Advisor questioned the applicant at length regarding the incident and two speeding offences for which he had received penalty points, his personal circumstances and previous employment.
The applicant made his closing statement. He reiterated that he had made a silly mistake. He had not done it since and he was not interested in illegal drugs. He wanted to continue his job as a taxi driver and put an end to this matter.
The Legal Advisor advised the Sub-Committee that it should consider whether or not the applicant was a fit and proper person to drive taxis in the District.
Members should consider the relevance of the applicant’s offences to driving taxis, the nature of the offences and how recent they were. The applicant had only one previous conviction. The Sub-Committee should consider two endorsements for speeding over 30mph in a 30mph limit. She advised that the Sub-Committee could take into account the fixed penalty notice for possession of cannabis although it was not a conviction. Public safety should be in the forefront of the SubCommittee’s consideration. The Sub-
Committee should take into account the statements by the applicant and the attendance by his prospective employer.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.47 and returned at 11.04 am.
The Chairman stated that whilst the Sub-Committee was concerned with regard to the drug-related incident it was accepted that it was an isolated incident and advised the applicant to take care where he stopped in future.

8
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
The press and public were readmitted to the meeting.
Enquiry regarding signage on vehicle, use of dvd screens for advertising purposes (WK/150034107)
This application was deferred until the next meeting at the request of the applicant as he was unable to attend this meeting.
9 Application for a review of a Premises Licence - The White Lady, Front
Street, Worstead, Norfolk, NR28 9RW
Present:
Mr D Gilligan (The White Lady)
Mr M Thompson (The White Lady)
Mrs R Pacey (local resident)
Cllr G Williams (local Member)
2 observers
Press
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. An application had been made for review of the premises licence held by Mr Gilligan and Mr
Thompson for The White Lady, Worstead. She referred to the location of the premises and the complaints received which had led to the review. She explained the activities which were allowed under the current licence and current conditions of the licence. She referred to the representations which had been received from responsible authorities and the statement by Mrs
Pacey. She drew attention to the Licensing Policy and guidance under
Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to reviews, and in particular, the powers of a licensing authority on the determination of a review as set out in the report. She outlined the options available to the Sub-Committee in determining this matter.
The Environmental Protection Manager gave an overview of this matter and referred to the history of complaints associated with the premises, mainly in relation to outdoor events. He explained that advice had been given prior to the 2015 Titchfest event which was not adhered to, and a Noise Abatement
Notice had been served to prevent further outdoor events. Subsequent to that Notice, Officers had worked with Mr Gilligan and Mr Thompson to try to get the volume down to an acceptable level but this had not been possible.
Discussions had been held with regard to conditions which would restrict events to coincide with the Worstead Festival and allow four weddings with

external amplified recorded music per year. Mr Gilligan and Mr Thompson were not entirely happy with the proposal. He understood that Mr Gilligan and Mr Thompson had undertaken some monitoring and had investigated using the side door of the premises when events took place inside the premises.
The Environmental Protection Manager answered questions.
Mr Gilligan referred to the proposed restricted times. There were no restrictions on the Worstead Festival field where sound levels were higher than he was expected to attain on the pub’s side of the boundary.
The Environmental Protection Manager stated that the authority was dealing with the premises only and no complaints had been received in respect of music at the Worstead Festival.
The Legal Advisor asked if there had been any issues since the Abatement
Notice was served. The Environmental Protection Officer explained that the
Environmental Protection team had worked with the premises during the
Worstead Festival weekend. Complaints had been received regarding the volume of music and complaints regarding internal music which were not related to the Abatement Notice.
Mr Gilligan was invited to put his case. He stated that historically music had been played at the Worstead Festival for many years. Live music had been played at the rear of the pub for 20 years. There had been no complaints up until 2013 when the pub split from the Worstead Festival. He considered that it was unfair that there were restrictions on the pub’s side of the hedge but not on the other. He understood there had been complaints. He had not heard of Mrs Pacey before and did not know where complainants were living as the details in the monitoring report had been redacted. He stated that people did not complain about the Village Hall, which put on live events, just the pub. He was only asking for a level playing field.
Mr Thompson added that they had not held live events since the complaints.
They had monitored levels at the pub’s boundaries and at Max Carter Close.
They had received complaints about noise which had not been from their premises and they had not had any music on at all. They had taken readings from the village hall at 80dB and this could be heard within the restaurant.
In answer to questions from the Sub-Committee, Mr Gilligan stated that music had been played at the pub and at the festival at the same time. They provided food and entertainment for a fun run which took place on the Friday of the Worstead Festival weekend.
Mrs Pacey was invited to make her statement. She stated that when the marquee was sited close to the boundary the noise shook her house. It had more recently been sited away from the boundary. She did not want to be instrumental in Mr Gilligan losing his business but she did not think she should have to put up with the noise. When music events took place she could feel it both outside and inside her home and could not even think. The only way to deal with it was to leave her home and she should not be forced to do that. Because of her medical condition she had to ask a carer to drive her away. The Worstead Festival finished earlier and was not the constant unbearable noise coming from the White Lady. She would like to stay in her home. She thanked Environmental Health for dealing with this matter.

In answer to a question Mrs Pacey stated that she had lived in the village for
5 years and when she first moved there she could hear music but it was spasmodic, unlike the heavy sound banging away from the tents in the field.
It was a totally different sound.
Mr Gilligan responded to this comment stating that since he had owned the pub there had been loud music in the field and complaints only started in
2013.
The Legal Advisor questioned Mr Gilligan and Mr Thompson regarding the impact on Mrs Pacey, attempts they had made to contact local residents prior to events taking place, action taken to try to reduce the noise levels, including moving the marquee away from Max Carter Close.
Mr Gilligan stated that they had wandered around the village and received no complaints from adjacent occupiers at Church Cottage, Old Post Office and
Jean’s Cottage, who were fairly supportive. He had never met Mrs Pacey.
There had been the same sort of bands and same size of marquee since
2011.
Mr Gilligan and Mr Thompson explained the measures taken to try to reduce the noise level, including moving the marquee for weddings. It had not been possible to achieve the level of 65dB requested by Environmental Health as background noise was 45dB and noise from the Worstead Festival was 80dB at the back door of the pub.
The Environmental Protection Officer explained that Environmental Health had tried to get an understanding of the levels. It did not mean that levels could be achieved because of other noise. He stated that every word which was sung could be heard inside people’s houses. Assurance had been given that a noise limiter would be on site, but it was not what Environmental Health had expected and could be overridden and Officers did not have much trust in the person operating it. Even with only the vocalist going through the amplifier the noise was above the level deemed acceptable for local residents. Environmental Health had tried to find a compromise.
Cllr G Williams, the local Member, was invited to speak. He stated that it was important to encourage the retention of a successful pub business but equally there was a requirement to look at issues which were having an impact on people’s quality of life. He referred to a current planning application which, if approved, would restrict the ability to move the marquee.
Mrs Pacey stated that she had not complained about the noise previously as she had been unaware that she could do anything about it until somebody told her she could complain.
Mr Gilligan presented his closing statement. He considered that restricting
The White Lady to four weddings a year would impinge upon the business.
He had spoken to James Wilson and Karen Baker to ask for more but had received no response.
Cllr Shepherd considered that it should have occurred to Mr Gilligan and Mr
Thompson before taking over the pub that the village was a rural farming village and that punk and heavy rock music, at times out of control, seemed

alien to that environment. He commented that there had to be some compromise over the type of music which could be played.
Mr Gilligan stated that he had visited the Worstead Festival prior to buying the premises and the music was loud. He was only asking to operate over the
Worstead Festival and have seven weddings per year.
The Environmental Protection Manager clarified that with regard to weddings, the restriction related to outdoor amplified live music.
The Legal Advisor advised Members of the Sub-Committee that they would be considering the review of the premises licence with a view to the promotion of the four licensing objectives. The relevant objective in this case was the prevention of public nuisance. In making their decision, they would consider the relevant written and oral evidence, the Council’s Licensing Policy relevant guidance, the Human Rights Act and relevant legislation. This would be balanced against the rights of the residents and the rights of the proprietors to run the business.
The Sub-Committee retired at 2.44 pm and returned at 3.46 pm.
The Chairman outlined the decision.
RESOLVED
That the following conditions be imposed on the premises licence, which modify the existing conditions:
1. No external amplified music events are permitted, save for those as detailed in condition 2 and condition 3 below.
Worstead Festival Weekend
2. During the Worstead Festival Weekend, external amplified music is permitted between the following times only:
Friday: 19:00 -22:00
Saturday: 17:00 -22:00
Sunday: 16:00 -21:00
Weddings/Celebrations
3. External, recorded, amplified music is permitted for no more than four weddings/celebrations in any calendar year.
3(a) No external amplified live music is permitted during these weddings/celebrations.
3(b) The playing of recorded amplified music must not exceed four hours in total.
3(c) The finish time for such weddings/celebration events must not be later than 23:00.
4. External amplified music events/weddings/celebrations must not occur on consecutive weekends.

5. All External doors and windows must be kept closed, other than for access and egress, in all rooms when events involving amplified music or speech are taking place.
The meeting closed at 3.55 pm.
__________________________
Chairman