Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 24 February
2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 11.30 am.
Sub-Committee
Officers in Attendance: Legal Advisor, Public Protection Manager and
Regulatory Officer
Licensing Enforcement Officer for minute 6 only
1 APOLOGIES
None received.
2
Mr B Hannah (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Shepherd
3
4
5
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
WITHDRAWN APPLICATION
The following application had been withdrawn prior to the hearing:
Fern Bank Dog Breeding, Fern Bank Riding School, Carr Lane, Roughton,
Norfolk, NR11 8PG (WK/140015214) – Application for a licence to keep a breeding establishment for dogs
PH137, (WK/150000365) – APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE
HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH
NORFOLK
Present: Mr A Bales (applicant)
The Chairman introduced the Members of 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 to renew a licence for his vehicle PH137. However, the signage in the rear window did not meet the req uirements of NNDC’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy and Handbook and the vehicle had failed its test on that basis. The applicant had challenged this policy and the matter had therefore been referred to the Sub-Committee.
There being no questions to the Officers, the applicant was invited to put his case.
The applicant stated that the signage had been done two years ago. He had been requested to remove the word “taxi” from the signage as the vehicle was for private hire only, which he had done. The vehicle had passed its previous tests. The rear window sign was the only signage on the vehicle and

advertised the airport side of the business. It did not obscure the view from the rear window, and NNDC had licenced one of his vehicles in the past which had no rear windows at all. He would remove the sign if required to do so, but wished to advertise his business.
The applicant answered Members’ questions.

The signage was specially designed for windows and was see-through.
The driver could see vehicles behind the vehicle and pedestrians crossing the road.

The vehicle seated 8 people.
 He had been asked to remove the word ‘taxi’ from the sign, but nobody minded the signage itself until the vehicle went to Henries for testing.

The vehicle was tested annually and had passed once, as far as he was aware, with the signage in place.

The signage had been in place prior to the introduction of the policy.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Public Protection Manager explained that the policy had been in force since July 2012. She had only been in post for one year and could not therefore comment on what had happened in the past. She had, however, submitted a report to the Licensing
& Appeals Committee seeking discretion with regard to vehicle signage but it was resolved to adhere to the existing policy. The policy was due for review during 2015 and the taxi industry would be invited to make representations.
Councillor R Shepherd asked how much freedom the vehicle examiners had in respect of assessing visibility through the windows.
The Public Protection Manager stated that there was no freedom in terms of vehicle signage. Any queries should be reported to NNDC for decision.
Private hire vehicles could not carry the word ‘taxi’ as it could mislead the public.
There were no further questions, and the applicant did not wish to make a closing statement.
The Public Protection Manager informed the Sub-Committee that the applicant had brought the vehicle in question with him if they wished to view it.
The Sub-Committee left the Council Chamber with the applicant and Public
Protection Manager to view the vehicle.
Following the inspection, the Sub-Committee retired at 11.53 am and returned at 12.09 pm.
The Legal Advisor stated that she had not provided legal advice to the Sub-
Committee. She presented the decision, and the reasons for it, on behalf of the Chairman.
RESOLVED
That the request be refused.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the licence would not be refused but the applicant would be required to remove the signage from the vehicle.

6 APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE - DEER'S GLADE
CARAVAN & CAMPING PARK, WHITE POST ROAD, HANWORTH,
NORFOLK, NR11 7HN
Present:
Supporting: Mr David Attew, Mrs Heather Attew, Mr Mike Attew and two other persons
Objecting: Mr David Doak, Mr Gerard Stamp, Mrs Alison Brett, Mr Brian Platts and Mr Luke Wilcox (representing Mr I Braka) and 16 other persons
Councillor N Smith (local Member)
Mr Tony Grover, Licensing Officer, Norfolk Constabulary
The Chairman introduced the Members of 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, which related to an application for a premises licence in respect of Deer’s Glade Caravan and
Camping Park and Muntjac Meadow, Hanworth. She stated that it was not the applicant’s intention to use Muntjac Meadow on a daily basis. Mrs
Heather Attew would act as premises supervisor and personal licence holder.
With regard to the objections which had been raised, the Public Protection
Manager stated that those relating to the Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) were not relevant to licensing and should not be considered at this meeting. The SSSI would be dealt with separately as a planning issue at the appropriate time.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the applicants had agreed to the conditions proposed by the Environmental Protection Team to satisfy the requirement to prevent public nuisance.
There were no questions from any of the parties to the Public Protection
Manager.
The Chairman invited the applicants to put their case.
Mrs Heather Attew stated that she would like to reassure the objectors and explain the sort of people they were, ethos of the business and the type of events which would be held. She made the following points:

The family were long-established in the area.

Tourism was a necessary diversification of their farming business.

They were passionate about the wonderful area of the country in which they lived and worked, and thought through very carefully the impact of their decisions on the locality, wildlife etc.

Events had been held under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and the reason for applying for a permanent licence was to reduce their workload and that of the Council.

The application had been amended in consultation with the Licensing
Officer and Police.

It was only intended to allow music on 10 events per year, and it would not be every weekend during the summer. Some events would not include music.


The meadow had enabled people to hold weddings in a nice area. They were family occasions and not rowdy. No 18 th
or 21 st
birthday parties, stag or hen parties or raves would be allowed.

Charitable/fundraising events were held for local causes. The bonfire and fireworks display had been running for 20 years.

No complaints had been received.
Mrs Attew responded to points raised in the objectors’ correspondence:

No complaints had been received from the livery yard in respect of disturbance to horses by firework noise. Their own animals were not disturbed by it.

Only some campers went to one local pub; these were mainly older guests who did not drop bottles and cans. Staff regularly picked up litter in White Post Road, much of which could be thrown from passing cars.

The notice had been made using guidelines from NNDC and was not done in an underhand way.

The claim that the site was originally a Caravan Club site was incorrect. It had been used by caravan rallies which brought their own permission from DEFRA.

The site was not in a Conservation Area.

Three events had been held in 2014 and four in 2013, not on “every weekend throughout the summer”. The marquee was not ‘over-used’.

It was agreed that the countryside was no place for a nightclub. Mrs
Attew did not think charity events and weddings could be deemed a nightclub.

The fireworks and bonfire events were publicised by a large notice adjacent to the A140, press, radio and social media.

Guests were not actively encouraged to trespass and ignore signs.
Guests were told that Gunton Park was private. They were told about the church and also the sawmill when it was open.

It was not true that the Police called regularly. There were three incidents in the last year, which was a small number considering the number of guests.

No planning consent was specifically refused for the site. Hanworth Fen was originally considered and the application amended to the site on the opposite side of White Post Road.

The applicants had not been aware that planning permission was required for Muntjac Meadow and were now in the process of submitting a planning application.
Councillor N Smith asked if a licence would be transferred if the present owners sold or leased the site.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the licence would need to be transferred or surrendered if no longer required.
The Chairman invited questions to the applicants.
Mr B Platts referred to complaints from local residents and from people staying at the site regarding noise at Deer’s Glade. He stated that this had not been addressed and continued unabated. He asked how the applicants could be expected to control noise from the marquee and fireworks, and why noise from the marquee would be less intrusive than that from another farmer’s celebration considerably further away.

Mr D Attew stated that he was unsure as to whether Mr Platts was referring to noise from children playing, music or something else. However, children on the playground could be very noisy on a summer evening and it was very difficult to stop children at play. Mr M Attew stated that the park had never been subject to an abatement order or done anything unacceptable.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to promotional materials advertising the park which contained wording including ‘idyllic’, ‘romantic’, ‘wildlife conservation’,
‘without the distraction of amusement halls or bars’. He asked if these statements held good. Mr D Attew confirmed that they did.
The Chairman asked for comments regarding alleged fighting and the police being called. Mr D Attew stated that he could not recall a fight, but there had been a domestic incident at Muntjac Meadow where the police were called by one of the family members. Mr M Attew stated that three people had died on the park, and they had been robbed on one occasion. The police had been called for these incidents.
Councillor B Jarvis asked how many people stayed on the site over the course of a year. Mr D Attew stated that it was around 30,000, with 400 people on site at a time during the summer months.
The Chairman asked if the applicants went out to talk to the community. Mrs
H Attew stated that they did not go out to speak to people, except for those they saw out and about, but were very open to people coming to talk to them to voice their concerns. Mr D Attew stated that their son was a member of the
Parish Council, and they attended meetings.
Mrs A Brett emphasised that the objectors were country people as well as the applicants and celebrated country life. She referred to the David Bellamy
Award which had been won by the park and considered that everything the applicants did went against everything the Award stood for.
Mr D Attew stated that the park had won the David Bellamy Gold Award for six years in succession. He stated that they cared for the countryside and considered it was rather harsh to say that having weddings and celebrations in the marquee was not caring for the countryside.
Mr G Stamp requested that the applicants acknowledge that there were 30 houses, not including their family, within earshot of Muntjac Meadow if music were played there.
Mr D Attew stated that if there were, he acknowledged it and took it very seriously. The applicants worked with Environmental Health in positioning the music system and bands, and had a list of bands which they recommended who had an understanding of what the applicants represented. The applicants were on site whilst music was being played to ensure that noise was kept to an absolute minimum.
Mr M Attew stated that he bred and kept a large number of ornamental waterfowl, with one of the largest collections in the country. He supplied birds to places, such as London and the Royal Parks, where they were subjected to more noise than they experienced at Muntjac Meadow. He was an authority on the subject, having spent his whole life in the countryside nurturing wildlife.

Mrs A Brett asked if the David Bellamy Award covered Muntjac Meadow. Mr
D Alston confirmed that it did, as well as some of the activities on the farm.
Mr L Wilcox asked what the applicants thought the RSPB meant in the first paragraph of its letter, which was appended to the report, referring to events likely to cause disturbance to the interest features of the SSSI.
Mr M Attew stated that the events would cause disturbance, but so would many other activities, such as shoots. He stated that shoots took place throughout the shooting season, with up to 10 guns, in comparison with a 20 minute firework display. He stated that gadwall numbers were higher than for many years.
There being no more questions, the objectors were invited to put their case.
Mr G Stamp made the following points:

30 families lived within 1100m of the marquee, not including the applicant’s family.

Last year a live music event on the meadow (not in the marquee) could be heard inside his house with the windows closed. He regretted that he had not complained, assuming it to be a one-off event and not something planned on a regular basis.

Friday and Saturday night intrusion would be against his human rights.

Licensing objectives should apply to all crime and disorder.

The SSSI was a relevant consideration. It was against the law to disturb wildlife and activities could cause displacement of birds, which if permanent, would be detrimental to the SSSI and lead to criminal degradation of the wildfowl reserve.

Wedding celebrations could involve a large amount of alcohol.

The proximity of a lake close to the site is an obvious temptation and could have tragic consequences.

He urged the Sub-Committee to refuse this application.
Mr M Attew stated that there would not be harm to the SSSI.
Cllr B Jarvis asked to what extent Mr Stamp was not satisfied that the applicants had addressed the concerns with regard to the lake in their statement as to how they would address the licensing objectives.
Mr Stamp stated that the accepted there would be checks but he considered that the applicants would not be able to control those who were drunk. He was also unsure how noise from the marquee could be controlled.
Mr B Platts made the following points:

N oise from Deer’s Glade was already unacceptable.

Noise from children screaming and adults shouting is a mixture of school playground and football ground.

The addition of alcohol would increase disturbance to near neighbours.

Alcohol dims awareness.

Amplified music and alcohol on Muntjac Meadow would cause additional noise pollution, possibly with 20 hours of noise per day.

A neighbouring far mer’s wedding reception which had caused disturbance and had led to prosecution.


The proximity of Great Water is a danger to children, particularly if parents were inebriated.

Want to ensure the remaining peace and quiet is not disturbed further.

Perhaps applicants could work with the community, as required by the
David Bellamy award, by withdrawing the application.
Mr M Attew explained further regarding the neighbouring farmer’s wedding reception and that it was the Council, not the Attew family, who had taken them to Court.
Mr B Jarvis asked to what extent Mr Platts was not satisfied that the applicants had addressed the concerns with regard to child safety and noise issues. He stated that measures would be required to be put in place which were not there at the moment.
Mr Stamp stated that he had based his concerns on what had happened in the past. Complaints had been made via the Parish Council to try to quieten the noise. However, noise continued unabated. He was not convinced the applicants were responsible enough to keep the noise down.
Mr D Doak made the following points:

Child safety was a very real issue. They tended to sneak away and things which are attractive to them could be a real danger if they were not used to them.

Noise has been audible under the TENs. Absence of complaints should not be taken as implicit endorsement. People were under the impression it was a one-off and not a test for something more commercial.

The number of objections from a fairly small population was a large percentage.

There was discrepancy in the number of events the applicants intended to hold. What is the projected scale of the business in five years’ time? The applicants were asking for a fairly unfettered licence.

Conflict of interest between Muntjac Meadow and Deer’s Glade – one will impose noise on the other.

There will be a large number of additional people on site when events are happening.

Encroachment on the SSSI is important. Damage to an SSSI is a criminal act.

Enforcement regarding criminal offences falls within the remit of the licensing objectives.

The applicants had realised there is a planning issue to be addressed.

Will the marquee be taken down after each event or left there?

The licensing application should depend on a valid planning consent.
Planning is left in limbo.
 The original planning application for Deer’s Glade was rejected as it did not conform to the Local Plan and a major factor was disturbance to the
SSSI.

There is a clear intention to carry out intrusive activities.

Disturbance to wildlife. It is not possible to make a clear decision with this hanging in the balance.

Application seems to be made in good faith; not making a planning application appears to be an oversight which the applicants are addressing.

Neighbours only found out about this application by the notice going up – neighbours should have been contacted.


24/7 application for alcohol and entertainment licence in a field, in a sensitive area of North Norfolk, close to the Conservation Area and SSSI.

Application should be declined or at least deferred until planning issues are sorted out.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Public Protection Manager confirmed that the SSSI would be considered under a planning application. It did not form part of the licensing application. If necessary, the Police could take action under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The marquee could be on site for up to 28 days without planning permission, which could be consecutive or separate days, regardless of whether or not it was being used.
The Legal Advisor explained that this was an exception under the General
Permitted Development Order.
The Chairman considered that Parish Councils should be consulted on large applications.
Mrs H Attew asked how far beyond the boundary of an SSSI could an activity be deemed a disturbance. The Legal Advisor stated that this question should be addressed to Natural England, or independent legal advice sought. Mrs
Attew confirmed that she would do so.
Mr L Wilcox made the following points:

Referred to legislation and case law to demonstrate that the proposal could have an impact on public and environmental amenity, resulting in public nuisance.

Harm to an animal can amount to a nuisance.

RSPB is of the view that the proposal will disturb the SSSI. Great weight should be given to its comments.

The local authority should take reasonable steps to further the conservation enhancement of the SSSI.

The impact on Great Water is within the licensing objectives and the local authority has a duty to have regard as to whether application will conserve the site.

No condition can be imposed which would avoid causing unacceptable harm to a site of national importance.

Concerns raised regarding trespass into the woods or lake.

The site has a long boundary. The number of wardens which would be required to ensure that no-one will trespass and put themselves or the
SSSI in danger should be addressed.

He urged refusal of this application.
Mr M Attew stated that shoots took place around the SSSI on 15-20 occasions during the season and asked why this did not disturb the SSSI. He did not wish to disturb the SSSI and the proposal was not an intrusion on wildlife.
Mrs H Attew asked if the application could be refused on the basis of noise created at the events venue when there were other noise-creating activities affecting the SSSI on a regular basis and closer to the SSSI than the meadow.
Mr Wilcox confirmed that it could, and referred to the expertise of the RSPB.

The Legal Advisor stated that she would address the relevance of this issue in closed session.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the RSPB had recommended restrictions on noise levels etc if the application were approved.
Mr Wilcox considered that the RSPB had offered an alternative if the application were not refused. Refusal was its preference.
The Chairman was concerned that the Safeguarding Children’s Board had not made any comment. The Legal Advisor advised that this was not relevant, but the Chairman considered that it was.
Councillor R Shepherd asked the applicant if he was confident that the requirements of the mandatory and additional conditions could be controlled and policed. Mr D Attew confirmed that he was.
The parties were invited to make their closing statements.
Mr Wilcox spoke on behalf of all the objecting speakers:

Everyone seemed to agree that the site was a pleasant, quiet, idyllic countryside location and that it was attractive and should be preserved.
The application, if granted, would not preserve these factors.

Muntjac Meadow was the more controversial element.

He r eferred to Mr Platt’s comments regarding noise. The addition of alcohol would exacerbate noise problems.

There were numerous water features in the area which could be dangerous to children. Alcohol would exacerbate the safety issues and was sufficient reason alone to refuse the application.

It was unlikely that wardens would notice children wandering out of the marquee.

30 families lived close to the site.

Music was audible within homes with the windows closed.

There was a lack of clarity over what the applicants were seeking in terms of the number of events.

Harm to the SSSI was a public nuisance and a matter for licensing; also the RSPB said there would be an impact on creatures and the application should be refused. The Council should take a precautionary approach.

Conditions could not control noise adequately.
Mr Doak added that the applicants should consider the core values of their business and tailor the application to them. He was concerned that there would be a temptation to increase the activities once they had started.
Mrs Attew stated that the applicants fully appreciated that local residents did not want the peaceful area to be ruined, but considered that there should be some level of compromise between local residents and themselves. There were benefits to the local area in terms of revenue and local business. The applicants were happy to work with the licensing authority to take advice and implement conditions which were imposed. The family had been upset by some of the comments. The applicants supported the local community and would do anything to minimise the impact on it. The number of children who wandered off was minimal and they would be supervised by their parents.
The noise of people playing was acceptable for a holiday park. It was in the family’s interests to police the noise levels to minimise the impact on local

residents and their own guests. They were happy to discuss issues face to face with local people.
The Sub-Committee retired at 3.44 pm and returned at 4.22 pm.
The Chairman stated that with the weight of evidence and other issues, it was not possible for the Sub-Committee to come to a decision immediately. The decision would be made within the statutory five day notification period and everybody would be notified of the decision.
The meeting closed at 4.23 pm.
NOTE:
Subsequent to the meeting, the application was approved
.
__________________________
Chairman