Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: Linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
23 December 2013
A meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday, 13 January 2014 at
10.00 a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs H Cox, Mrs A R Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah, Mr
P W High, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd,
Mr B Smith, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mr J A Wyatt.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting,
please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format
or in a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
3.
MINUTES
(attached – page 1)
To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals
Committee held on 11 November 2013 and also the minutes of the meetings of the
Licensing Sub-Committees held on 22 October, 26 November and 17 December 2013.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
6.
CHANGES TO LAW ON CARAVAN SITE LICENSING
Summary:
(attached – page 21)
This report outlines the implications for the
Council in respect of the new law.
Conclusions:
7.
Recommendations:
That Members note the report
Cabinet member(s):
Councillor John Lee
Licensing Committee Chairman
Councillor Richard Price
Contact Officer, telephone
number, and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
All
Chris Cawley 01263 516252
Chris.cawley@north-norfolk.gov.uk
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
The Licensing Manager will give an oral update on licensing issues.
8.
TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“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 _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
10.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item ____3____
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 11
November 2013 in the Council Chamber, North Lodge Park, Overstrand Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr P W Moore
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor, Environmental Health
Officer, Licensing Technical Administrator and the Regulatory
Officer.
9
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE & WELCOME TO NEW MEMBER
Mrs H Cox and Mr B Hannah sent their apologies.
The Chairman welcomed Mr P W Moore to the Committee.
10
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
11
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 22 July
2013 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committees held on 3
July and 25 September 2013 were approved as correct records and signed by the
Chairman.
Councillor P W High reported that neither he nor Holt Town Council had received any
objections regarding events held at Holt Hall since the grant of the Premises Licence.
He thanked the Committee for approving the application.
12
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
13
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Mr R Reynolds declared a personal interest in Minute
15 as their son worked for a scrap metal firm.
14
LICENSING ACT 2003 – REPORT COVERING 2012-13
The Licensing Manager presented the report, which provided an overview of the
operation of the Licensing Act 2003 during the past 12 months.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
1
11 November 2013
The vast majority of licensed premises in North Norfolk were well run, providing a
valuable amenity for the local area and in support of the tourism economy. The
economic climate continued to have a significant adverse effect on many licensed
businesses. The number of licensed premises had remained fairly static. However,
a significant number of pubs had closed which had been offset by an increase in
other venues which had diversified their business, such as village halls, guest houses
and stately homes. This was a national trend which was set to continue, with many
villages losing their traditional pub.
There had been no issues arising from licensed premises in respect of crime and
disorder. Noise nuisance issues had been dealt with by Environmental Health.
There were no major issues regarding the protection of children from harm, although
there had been one instance of sale of alcohol to a minor arising from test purchases
in the District.
The Licensing Manager gave details of an illegal rave which had taken place,
however no action could be taken under the Licensing Act as there was a lack of
evidence.
Some venues were doing very well and work had been carried out to ensure that
proprietors were aware of the licensing requirements. Town and Parish Councils
were encouraged to keep the Authority informed if there were potential problems.
The Licensing Manager asked Members to assist with intelligence gathering.
The Licensing Manager referred to Government consultation regarding abolition of
the current framework for Personal Alcohol Licences and changes to Entertainment
Licensing as set out in the report. As a result of the proposed changes to
entertainment licensing, almost all of North Norfolk’s licensed venues would not
necessarily need an Entertainment Licence for any type of music before 11 pm.
There would also be exemptions for circuses and Greco-Roman and freestyle
wrestling. Community centres, local authority and school venues would not require a
licence; however this did not necessarily mean that all events would be run for the
benefit of the local community which could give rise to concerns.
The Committee expressed concern that the proposed changes would mean that
some venues did not need to have a supervisor in charge. Councillor P W High
proposed that a letter be sent to the Government expressing concern regarding this
issue. The Licensing Manager explained that premises would need to be licensed
but there would be no requirement for the applicant to be qualified for the Licensing
Authority to check they were an appropriate person.
In answer to a question, the Licensing Manager stated that for venues with late night
licences there were controls in place post-11pm which had stood the test of time.
Resources were needed to monitor and enforce those conditions. If issues arose, it
was generally with venues which were not habitually used late at night. Where
conditions were breached, warnings could be issued and there was a sanction to
review the licence, with possible revocation. No conditions could be imposed prior to
11 pm for live music at the moment and this would apply to recorded music in the
future.
There was a lack of clarity at the moment as to the detail around some of the issues
and the Licensing Manager hoped that the detail would become clearer following the
consultation process.
The Committee noted the report and it was
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2
11 November 2013
RESOLVED
That a letter be sent to the Government expressing concerns regarding
the proposal to remove the need for premises supervisors at licensed
venues.
15
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
Scrap Metal Dealers
The Licensing Manager reported that applications under the new licensing framework
had been submitted by 14 establishments or individuals. The necessary criminal
record and insurance checks had been carried out and premises would be inspected
by both NNDC and the Police.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern as to how the licensing system
could regulate cash transactions which she considered would inevitably take place.
The Licensing Manager explained that every piece of scrap would have to be
accounted for all the way along.
In response to a question by Councillor P W Moore, the Licensing Manager stated
that civic amenity sites and general carriers such as Kier would be exempt from
licensing. However, any individual or business which specifically collected scrap
metal would be licensable and auditable. If a person disposed of scrap for which
they did not get paid would be exempt but if they took it to a licensed site for payment
they would have to account for it. It was likely that the legislation would stop theft,
but it could also have an impact on fly tipping. In order to sell on the scrap, the
business would have to prove where it came from.
The Licensing Administrator added that the Police could require scrap to remain in
the same format for 72 hours.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the legislation would create a minefield of
problems. She asked how a number of items could be disposed of and whether a
collector would have to itemise them.
The Licensing Manager explained that reasonable accuracy would be required, and it
was likely that photographs would be used. If a person was disposing of domestic
materials from their own land they would not need to prove ownership. However, a
business which was disposing of items would have to demonstrate that the items
were redundant or being written off and payment would be made to the business
rather than the individual.
Beauty treatments and body piercing
The Licensing Manager reported that consultation on new byelaws to regulate beauty
treatments and body piercing had taken place and, following advertisement of the
Council’s intention to adopt the byelaws, a further report would be brought to the
Committee in January. They would be adopted for all premises in North Norfolk.
Concerns were expressed that treatments such as Botox were currently outside the
regulations which could be adopted by the Council. Botox was considered to be a
medical treatment. The Environmental Health Officer stated that the Government
was currently undertaking a review of medical procedures.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
3
11 November 2013
RESOLVED
That a letter be sent to the Government to encourage it to address other
treatments, such as Botox, which were freely available but not within
the scope of current legislation.
16
LICENSING POLICY FOR SEX ESTABLISHMENTS
The Licensing Manager presented a report outlining the framework for consultation
and adoption of a policy for the consideration, processing and determination of
applications for sex establishment licences. He explained that whilst there were no
proposals for regular use of venues in North Norfolk for this purpose, it was
considered that it was only a matter of time before an application was received and
for this reason a framework should be in place to protect the public.
Councillor P W Moore requested that the word “point” be added at the end of
paragraph 5 of Annex A to the proposed policy. He considered that the document
was very good.
The Licensing Manager answered Members’ questions.
1. Occasional sex shows could currently take place in premises which were licensed
for entertainment. The proposed framework would allow venues to be used
habitually for such purposes, and include safeguards for performers which could
not be included in alcohol or entertainment licences. The new framework would
not prevent one-off events at other venues.
2. There was currently no maximum set in respect of the number of pubs or clubs
etc. in the North Norfolk area. However, if it appeared that the District was
attracting too many of a certain type of venue there could be grounds for setting a
maximum.
3. Matters of detail, such of the proportion of items sold in a shop for it to be deemed
a sex shop, were for later consideration. The purpose of the report was to set the
framework for consideration of these issues.
4. Sex establishments were licensable only if payment was made for the
entertainment, article etc.
RESOLVED
That the draft Licensing Policy for Sex Establishments be approved for
consultation purposes.
17
TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
No Task and Finish Groups had met since the last meeting.
The meeting closed at 12 noon.
___________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
4
11 November 2013
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 22
October 2013 at Oddfellows Hall, Lifeboat Plain, Sheringham at 10.15 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr R Price(Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Officers in Attendance:
Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager, Regulatory Officer
and Licensing Technical Administrator (LC)
Licensing Technical Administrator (ND) and Customer
Service Advisor (observing)
Also in attendance:
1
Press and as shown below
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs H Cox and Mr R Reynolds.
Mr R Price and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds attended the meeting as their
substitutes respectively.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
4.
Application for a new Premises Licence Gresham, Norfolk, NR11 8AD
Chaucer Barn, Holt Road,
Present:
For applicant: Mr J Mermagen
Ms L Foster
Mr W Parker
Mr A Parle
Mr K Beard
Objectors:
Mr Houghton
Mr N Turner
Mr Rodway
Also present: Mrs Hulse
Mrs Rodway
Mrs Turner
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and the Officers.
The Licensing Manager stated that there appeared to be a degree of
confusion as to the current licensing status of Chaucer Barn. He explained
that it was currently approved by Norfolk County Council as a wedding venue.
It was therefore licensed as a venue whereby marriages could take place
under the framework of the Registrar Service. A wedding ceremony was a
Licensing Sub-Committee
5
22 October 2013
public event, which any member of the public was entitled to attend and it was
a moot point as to when a ceremony finished and a reception started.
The application sought a permanent licence. The venue had been operating
under Temporary Event Notices (TENs), which, under the Licensing Act,
enabled any proprietor to hold events of between one hour and 96 hours
duration, effectively once a month.
There had been situations at the venue where events were planned which
would have been a problem given the number of temporary events already
agreed for the year.
The Licensing Manager referred to representations which had been received
and had been included in the agenda. Two further valid representations had
been received following publication of the agenda but before the expiry of the
consultation period. These persons had a right to address the SubCommittee.
The Legal Advisor explained the procedure for the hearing. At a later stage
the Sub-Committee would retire to make its decision. She would accompany
the Members in order to advise in the formulation of evidence and reasons
but would take no part in the decision-making.
The applicant requested clarification as to whether the right to object was for
residents of Gresham only or if it included holiday home owners. The
Licensing Manager explained that the guidance currently allowed any person
with an interest to make representations, whether they were permanent
residents, business owners or representatives of organisations in the area.
The concept of ‘vicinity’ had been removed from the licensing legislation so
therefore it was open to anybody to raise an objection. However, it was not
anticipated that anybody without a local interest would raise objections. It
was for the Chairman’s judgement as to how relevant representations were
under the licensing objectives, and for the parties to argue relevance in terms
of context.
Mr Mermagen put his case. He emphasised that there was no intention make
any changes or to extend the hours or the business. The purpose of the
application was to formalise the current situation by a permanent licence
rather than Temporary Events Notices (TENs). He could currently have 12
TENs per year and a permanent licence would allow greater flexibility.
Occasionally, a bride and groom wanted to bring in a paying bar and this was
the reason for TENs in the past. There was no bar at the premises and there
was no intention to do so in the future. He was not interested in making
money through the sale of alcohol or through music. He supplied the venue
only and did not get involved with other aspects of the occasion. He was very
strict with regard to music and ensured that music was brought inside the
premises at 8.30 pm and that doors and windows were kept shut. It was very
difficult to have more than two weddings per week at the premises.
Mr Mermagen considered that the objections on pages 49, 51 and 55 were
not relevant because they were made, it would appear, by the owners of
holiday lets and one did not specify an address. He considered that pressure
had been put on people to object and the majority of those who had not done
so had felt strongly that there was no problem. No complaints had been
received by any of his team in the four years he had been in the wedding
Licensing Sub-Committee
6
22 October 2013
business. There had been no objection by any statutory authority. He lived
locally and was keen to get on with his neighbours.
Mr Mermagen stated that there were measures in place to minimise
disturbance and those involved with the business were learning from issues
which had arisen in the past, for example, fireworks had been stopped 2½
years ago and the car park had been moved to the rear of the barn further
away from the village. Chaucer Barn was located on the eastern edge of the
village and the majority of traffic did not go through the village. As there were
no bed and breakfast or pub facilities in the village there was no need for
guests to walk through the village to get to their accommodation.
The possibility of a volume control system was being investigated which
would control live and recorded music. Details of the system had been sent
to the Licensing Manager.
Mr Mermagen stated that Chaucer Barn had been voted 6th best wedding
venue in the UK and raised the profile of North Norfolk and Gresham. He
referred to the need for farm diversification and the changing rural economy.
The Chairman reminded speakers that they should focus on application which
would be determined under the four licensing objectives.
Mr Mermagen stated that as a place of employment there had always been a
degree of nuisance around Chaucer Farm. He could employ up to 100
people in any one month. He would do everything in his power to reduce the
nuisance value but he and his trading partners were doing all they could to
keep the rural economy going.
In response to questions relating to the type of music and proposed sound
limiter, Mr Mermagen explained that no amplified music was allowed
outdoors. He explained to guests that if the music could be heard at the
bottom of the drive it was too loud. The sound limiter would cut out any music
above a certain decibel level. It would be set at a level which would prevent
music being heard beyond the boundary. Whilst an appropriate device had
been identified, the equipment had not yet been purchased.
The Licensing Manager stated that sound limiters would only work with
amplified music. They would not work with live music.
In answer to further questions, Ms Foster explained that as well as weddings,
Chaucer Barn was used for birthday and anniversary parties. There were no
one-day events and guests stayed for three nights. There was no intention to
change anything. Up to 80 guests could be seated in the function room. If
there were more guests a marquee was chosen. Mr Mermagen insisted that
the drinks table was held on a stone floor and that music moved into the barn
after 8.30pm.
Mr Parle (caterer) explained how the flow of alcohol was controlled, and
stated that music was brought inside by 8.30 pm, with curtains drawn to
dampen the sound and all windows and doors kept shut.
Ms Foster added that there was a £300 charge if music was too loud but the
charge had never been made because there had been no complaints. Some
business had been lost because of the restrictions imposed by the company.
Licensing Sub-Committee
7
22 October 2013
Mr Parker (Bernies Taxis) explained that his transport company picked up
guests from Chaucer Barn, which was a personal favourite as he knew that
guests were well-behaved and appreciated the service. He explained how
guests were dropped off and collected.
Mr Beard explained his role in the wedding day arrangements, which included
arrangements for car parking and attendance in Mr Mermagen’s absence to
check that instructions were adhered to. He was available 24/7 and would
attend if there was any trouble.
In answer to further questions regarding doors and windows, Ms Foster
explained that in summer guests complained about having to close the doors
and windows, but this was the rule. There were several doors but the internal
and external doors would not be open together. Bands were seated in front of
large glass doors which onto the patio so that guests could not go of them to
smoke. The Fire Service was happy with these arrangements.
Mr N Turner (objector) stated that he was not part of a concerted campaign,
but represented himself and his wife. He was concerned as to how noise and
nuisance could be controlled and prevented. The applicant was very
apologetic of noise which had been created but he was not always aware or
able to prevent what was going on at the venue. Mr Turner had experienced,
team games, shouting and cheering, fireworks (which had now been
addressed), Chinese lanterns which had burnt his trees, music, stunt aircraft,
pa systems being tested, and after events, shouting, car doors and noisy
behaviour.
In response to questions by Mr T Houghton (objector), Ms Foster explained
that if the barn was let to people who invited others who were not staying to
an event, it would be treated as a wedding party. Mr Mermagen explained
that whilst most events finished by midnight it was helpful to say music could
be played until 2am when people were making a booking. Mr Parle added
that ‘carriages at midnight’ was recommended.
Mr Houghton referred to complaints he had made regarding noisy parties. Mr
Mermagen explained that these related to private functions at his own home
and explained the circumstances. There had never been a complaint
regarding Chaucer Barn.
Mr J Rodwell stated that he served on Gresham Parish Council. Whilst he
accepted that no formal complaints had been made to NNDC, informal
complaints had been made to the Parish Council on a number of occasions.
He was concerned about an extension to 2am. He understood that the
business was doing well and questioned the need to change the
arrangements if the present arrangements worked.
Mrs A Hulse, who lived adjacent to the site, stated that if all doors and
windows were closed there was already a problem as she could hear the
music after 8.30pm, including the lyrics. The sound did not stop at the
boundary.
In response, Mr Mermagen stated that he lived between the barn and the
village and acted as a buffer between the two. He accepted that on a very
still night it might be possible to hear the music but he tried to ensure that he
could hear nothing inside his house. He hoped that the volume limiting
system would cut off the music if it reached Mrs Hulse’s property.
Licensing Sub-Committee
8
22 October 2013
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Licensing Manager explained the
difference between TENs and a full licence. A full licence offered more
controls, could be conditioned and anybody could ask for the licence to be
reviewed, which was not the case with a TEN. He added that the sound
meter would only work with amplified music and not necessarily with a band,
which could be louder than a disco. Sound levels set in decibels did not work
well and to say that no music will be audible at the boundary would be more
pragmatic. He referred to recent changes in licensing law which meant that
some activities, such as live music, were not licensable until 11pm.
The Panel had no further questions. The objectors and applicant were invited
to make their closing statements.
The objectors had no further statements to make. Mr Houghton stated that he
did not have confidence that functions would be well managed or controlled.
Mr Mermagen stated that he would note the points which had been made in
respect of live bands, and if sound levels needed to be monitored in certain
areas he would do so. Bands which were deemed to go above the accepted
level would not be invited back.
Ms Foster stated that it would be helpful if people came to talk if there was a
problem and would allow issues to be addressed if and when they arose. The
proprietors had not realised there was a problem.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee would retire to consider the
evidence and make its decision. Only those representations which related to
the four licensing objectives could be considered. The Sub-Committee could
grant the licence as submitted without conditions, or consider if there were
conditions which would address the licensing objections. If there were no
such conditions the Sub-Committee would consider refusal.
The Sub-Committee retired and returned at 12.45pm.
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee considered that the applicant
ran what was principally a wedding business and wanted additional flexibility
for the events. The applicant and those working with him had shown good
management and control of events which was reflected in the terms and
conditions.
However those objecting had highlighted experience of
disturbance from noise, particularly live music. Only relevant representations
had been considered and disregarded those, such as matters relating to
commercial interests, which did not assist with the promotion of the licensing
objectives. The needs of the applicant had been balanced with those of other
persons making representations.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted subject to the following:
1.
2.
3.
Provision of live music only between the hours of 1400 and 2300
each day.
Provision of recorded music during the following hours:
1400 hours to midnight Sunday to Thursday
1400 hours to 0100 Friday and Saturday
Supply of alcohol during the following hours:
Licensing Sub-Committee
9
22 October 2013
4.
5.
1400 hours to midnight Sunday to Thursday
1400 hours to 0100 Friday and Saturday
Imposed conditions:
1. External music must not continue beyond 2100 hours each
day
2. All external doors and windows at Chaucer Barn must be kept
closed , other than for access and egress, during periods of
licensable activity
3. A noise limiting device shall be installed, fitted and
maintained in such a manner as to control all sources of
amplified music at the premises to prevent noise nuisance to
neighbouring properties. The noise limiter shall be set so as
to maintain the maximum level as agreed in writing with the
Environmental Health Department at North Norfolk District
Council.
Application for a new Premises Licence Road, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk, NR21 0DX.
Melody House, 29 Station
Present:
For applicant: Mrs A Buxton
Mr C Buxton
Objectors:
Mr J Lee
Mrs L Lee
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. He stated that
the application would be considered under the four licensing objectives and
comments which did not relate to these objectives were not relevant.
The Legal Advisor explained the procedure for the hearing. At a later stage
the Sub-Committee would retire to make its decision. She would accompany
the Members in order to advise in the formulation of evidence and reasons
but would take no part in the decision-making.
The Licensing Manager outlined the application. He stated that there were
many bed and breakfast establishments who wished to sell alcohol to their
guests. Many different types of venue could be licensed to sell alcohol, eg.
an open field, church or stately home. If a bed and breakfast establishment
obtained a licence to sell alcohol it did not automatically become a public
house.
The Licensing Manager clarified the location of the Boar Inn which was
adjacent to Melody House, and other premises owned by the applicant. He
stated that issues relating to competition could not be considered by the SubCommittee. There were issues relating to public safety in relation to the use
of the premises, possible car parking and road use which were more relevant
to consider than other points which had been made.
The applicant put her case. Mrs Buxton stated that she and her son ran an
upmarket bed and breakfast. The average age of her guests was 50+. She
considered that she did not contravene any of the four licensing objectives.
There was a rear car park for 20 cars and CCTV cameras which were fully
operational. She had a long history in the licensed trade and had held a
personal licence for many years. She had never had any trouble with the law
Licensing Sub-Committee
10
22 October 2013
because of drinking. She had been giving complimentary wine to her guests
and had not realised that she needed a premises licence to do so.
The applicant was questioned by the parties and in response made the
following points:
a) 7 guests could be accommodated at Melody House, 6 in the adjacent
holiday cottage and 4 in the end terrace property, all of which were owned
by the applicant. The applicant would be seeking planning permission for
a 4-bed extension.
b) Clients were not only holidaymakers but also people visiting relatives and
attending weddings. They did not always want to sit in a pub and liked to
sit in the lounge. The applicant was considering offering an evening meal
when the public house was not open.
c) In response to a question regarding operation of a proof of age scheme,
Mrs Buxton explained that guests with children were encouraged to
choose the holiday cottage rather than stay at the bed and breakfast.
d) Guests sometimes wanted to buy an extra bottle of wine but at the
moment they could not do so. The licence would allow this. There was
nothing to stop guests bringing in wine for consumption on the premises.
e) There was nowhere to go in Great Ryburgh after 9pm.
f) It was never envisaged that the premises would be generally open.
g) The premises had been licensed for on and off sales when it had been a
shop.
Mr Lee (objector) raised issues regarding highway safety. He stated that
there were two 90o bends and the business was located opposite a children’s
nursery.
Mr and Mrs Lee raised issues relating to parking availability, the operation of
their premises and competition which were not relevant to the licensing
objectives and could not be taken into account.
The Licensing Manager stated that if the Sub-Committee was minded to
approve the licence it could be conditioned to require that alcohol should not
be sold other than to bona fide customers of the premises or associated
businesses. In response to a question by the Chairman as to how the licence
would cover guests staying at the premises and family or friends visiting
them, he stated that alcohol could be bought by bona fide guests of the
business but there was no legal requirement with regard to consumption.
The Chairman invited to parties to make their closing statements.
The objectors had no further statement to make.
The applicant stated that she abided by the four licensing objectives, had no
problem with guests staying at the premises and envisaged no problem in the
future. There had been no objections from the properties facing the
premises.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee would retire to consider the
evidence and make its decision. It could not consider issues relating to
commercial interests and competition, but could take into account public
safety issues.
The Sub-Committee returned at 1.45 pm.
Licensing Sub-Committee
11
22 October 2013
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee was of the view that the applicant
ran a Bed and Breakfast and wished to provide alcohol principally with or after
meals, after attending an event, or to enjoy with other guests. It appeared to be a
well-run business, with the applicant wishing for flexibility when dealing with
customers. There had been no evidence of rowdy behaviour, nuisance or safety
issues or concerns surrounding protection of children. There had been no
representations from Responsible Authorities.
The Sub-Committee had considered only relevant representations and had
disregarded any comments which did not assist with considering the likely effect
of grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives. It
had not taken into account the effect of the grant of a licence on the commercial
interests of nearby businesses. The Sub-Committee had balanced the need of
the applicant with the needs of other persons where relevant representations
were made.
It was not considered that there was a need to impose additional conditions.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
The meeting concluded at 1.48 pm.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing Sub-Committee
12
22 October 2013
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 26
November 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr B Hannah (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Shepherd
Officers in Attendance:
Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager, and Regulatory
Officer
Assistant Employed Barrister (observing)
1
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
4
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
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.
5
APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR
PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK (WK/130034029)
Present: Applicant & Supporter
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. The applicant
confirmed he had no objection to a member of the Council’s Legal Team
observing the proceedings. The Legal Advisor outlined the procedure to be
followed. She explained that, after hearing the representations on this matter,
the Sub-Committee would retire to make its decision. She would accompany
the Sub-Committee to provide legal advice and assistance in formulating its
reasons but would not take part in making the decision. The Sub-Committee
needed to be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive
a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle in North Norfolk.
The Licensing Manager stated that he understood the applicant had
previously been a taxi driver in the District many years ago. However, historic
records were not kept and the applicant was not known to him. The applicant
had completed his application and supplied the necessary paperwork
Licensing Sub-Committee
1
26 November 2013
correctly. However, there were issues regarding his criminal record which
required consideration. He circulated a certified copy of the applicant’s
Disclosure and Barring Report. The applicant had supplied two references,
one of whom was a District Councillor. For reasons of transparency he had
been requested to supply an alternative referee, One reference had been
received, which was appended to the report. However, despite sending a
reminder, one reference remained outstanding.
The Licensing Manager confirmed that a second reference was necessary.
The Chairman requested that the applicant contact his outstanding referee to
save further burden on the taxpayer.
The applicant stated that the outstanding referee had been his employer for
22 years and had agreed to provide a reference, but had informed the
applicant that he had heard nothing from the Council.
The Licensing Manager confirmed that a letter had been sent. He suggested
that if the Sub-Committee were minded to grant a licence it should be subject
to the provision of the outstanding reference. He would accept a reference in
electronic form in order to save time if the applicant managed to contact the
referee.
The applicant put his case. He stated that his criminal record was something
he was not proud of. His offences were sporadic, isolated incidents which he
regretted and he had since moved on. They were in the past, he did not like
talking about them and had not done so for a long time. He was no longer the
sort of person who was portrayed by these incidents.
The applicant answered the Sub-Committee’s questions.
a) He had been 22 at the time of the first offence and it had been a shock to
his system being his first offence.
b) The Chairman observed that the offences had been approximately 7
years apart. The applicant stated that it had been many years since his
last offence. He had learned from his mistakes and moved on. Taxi
driving was a way forward for him, he was in the twilight of his career and
had been unemployed for two years. His supporter had offered him work
and had made up a shortfall in funding from the Department of Work and
Pensions which had allowed him to apply for a three-year licence.
c) The offences were not marital or related to drink. He was not married and
did not drink or smoke. They had been on a short fuse but had heard
worse words in a pub brawl than were used in the offences.
d) He had been CRB checked for a security job which he currently had and
also for his part-time work. He enjoyed working with the public, had a
good rapport with the public and his customers.
The applicant’s supporter explained that he had been let down by other
people whose applications he had funded and as a result he had been
reluctant to do so in the future. However, when the applicant had approached
him it was obvious that he wanted to work. He had been surprised by his
criminal record and could not believe it was the same person. The applicant
interacted with everyone, and he was wanted as part of the team.
The applicant stated that he was grateful for his supporter’s financial
assistance and offer of work.
Licensing Sub-Committee
2
26 November 2013
As his closing statement the applicant stated that he was itching to be working
and it was what he wanted to do. He had had driving jobs in the past,
enjoyed being with the public and offering a service.
There being no further questions or statements, the Chairman stated that the
Sub-Committee would retire to consider its verdict. The Legal Advisor stated
that in making its decision the Committee’s overriding consideration was the
safety of the travelling public. Members were aware that a taxi driver would
have to deal with people who were unreasonable and difficult, and had to
control himself in difficult situations. Members would have to consider the
applicant’s convictions, the extent of offending and seriousness of the
offences, the penalties given and how relevant they were to the job of driving
taxis. She referred to the convictions detailed on the disclosure. The
Committee had to bear in mind the applicant’s statements with regard to the
offences and his position now, and consider whether he was a fit and proper
person to drive a taxi. Members should consider whether they would be
happy to allow someone they cared about to travel alone with the applicant.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.25 am and returned at 10.34 am.
The Chairman stated that the Committee had borne in mind that the offences
had occurred a long time ago, the comments of the supporter and the
reference which had been received.
RESOLVED
That the application be approved subject to a second satisfactory
reference being supplied.
The meeting concluded at 10.35 am.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing Sub-Committee
3
26 November 2013
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 17
December 2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr J Wyatt (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Officers in Attendance:
Legal Advisor, Licensing Manager, Licensing Technical
Administrator and Regulatory Officer
Assistant Employed Barrister (observing)
Customer Services Advisor (observing)
1
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
The Licensing Manager stated that the Licensing Technical Administrator
would present case WK/130043417 as he was acting as a witness for the
Council in this matter.
4
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
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.
5
APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR
PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK (WK/130040365)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. The Legal
Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed. She explained that, after
hearing the representations on this matter, the Sub-Committee would retire to
make its decision. She would accompany the Sub-Committee to provide legal
advice and assistance in formulating its reasons but would not take part in
making the decision.
The Licensing Manager stated that the applicant had applied for a licence to
drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk. He had
Licensing Sub-Committee
16
17 December 2013
voluntarily disclosed two motoring offences which had occurred some time
ago. The Licensing Manager circulated the applicant’s Disclosure and
Barring Service report to the Sub-Committee.
The applicant explained the circumstances of his offences. The offence of
driving an uninsured vehicle had been an oversight on his part and he had at
the time held insurance on another vehicle. With regard to his second offence
of displaying a fraudulent tax disc, he had been stupid in thinking he could get
away with it and was something he was not proud of. He assured the SubCommittee that since that time he was a completely different person. He
stated that there were two additional offences on the DBS report which he
had not committed. He had disputed this matter and was awaiting the
response of the Northumbria Police.
The Sub-Committee and Officers questioned the applicant.
(a) The applicant stated that he had altered the date on the excise licence.
He was a completely different person now and redemption had been long
and hard.
(b) The Licensing Manager confirmed that the applicant had submitted all
necessary documents with his application.
(c) The applicant confirmed that his offences related only to driving with no
insurance and one offence of fraudulent use of and excise licence. He
vehemently disputed the other offences listed on the DBS report.
The Chairman invited the applicant to make his closing statement.
The applicant reiterated that his circumstances had changed completely. He
was remarried, had a different family and lived in a different part of the
country. He wanted to use this opportunity of obtaining a taxi licence for a
new start and to move things forward. He accepted that he had been foolish
in the past and requested that the Sub-Committee look on it as something
which would not happen again. In answer to a further question from the
Chairman, the applicant explained that he had a part time job with a local
coach firm and also as a delivery driver. He sought a taxi driver’s licence to
provide him with more permanent employment.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.08 am and returned at 10.28 am
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee considered that the offences
were over 10 years ago, the applicant regretted them and had changed his
life. The Sub-Committee therefore considered that the applicant was a fit and
proper person to drive a taxi in North Norfolk.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
6
APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR
PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK (WK/130043171)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. The Legal
Advisor outlined the procedure to be followed. She explained that, after
hearing the representations on this matter, the Sub-Committee would retire to
make its decision. She would accompany the Sub-Committee to provide legal
Licensing Sub-Committee
17
17 December 2013
advice and assistance in formulating its reasons but would not take part in
making the decision. The Sub-Committee had to consider the safety of the
public and she advised the applicant to bear this in mind when making his
representation.
The Licensing Manager stated that the applicant had applied for a licence to
drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk. He had been
associated with the taxi trade for some time and now wished to become a
driver. All documentation had been submitted. The applicant had disclosed a
historic conviction for drink driving which did not appear on his DBS report.
The applicant had since held licences related to the pub trade.
The applicant stated that he was 24 years old at the time of the offence. It
had occurred at 4am returning home from a house party and resulted, on
conviction, in a £100 fine and one year ban. It was the only serious incident
which had occurred in his life. He did not take it lightly that it was on his
record.
The Sub-Committee questioned the applicant.
(a) The applicant hardly drank at all.
(b) The applicant stated that he held both premises and personal alcohol
licences.
(c) He had been working as a taxi controller since 2010.
The applicant handed his DBS report to the Legal Advisor, who confirmed
that there were no entries.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.40 am and returned at 10.43 am.
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee could find no reason why the
applicant should not be granted a licence.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
7
CONTRAVENTION OF CONDITIONS ON A LICENCE TO DRIVE
HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES – APPEAL
AGAINST PENALTY POINTS (WK/130043417)
Present: Appellant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers. He stated that
the Council’s case would be presented by the Technical Administrator given
that the Licensing Manager was a witness for the Council.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Panel had been set up to hear the case with
regard to the appellant not having his badge and parking or stopping with one
or more wheels on the pavement. The appellant had declined to accept
points on his licence and had requested that the Sub-Committee hear his
case. She outlined the procedure to be followed. She explained that, after
hearing the representations on this matter, the Sub-Committee would retire to
make its decision. She would accompany the Sub-Committee to provide legal
advice but would not take part in making the decision.
Licensing Sub-Committee
18
17 December 2013
The Technical Administrator stated that the case related to contravention of
conditions of the appellant’s licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire
vehicles. She outlined the processes which had been undertaken and, with
the Chairman’s agreement, invited the Licensing Manager to present the
witness statement.
The Licensing Manager presented his witness statement on behalf of the
Council. He explained the offences which had been committed and the lack
of co-operation he had received from the appellant when attempting to
ascertain his name and badge number. He had then recognised the appellant
and written to him, given him the opportunity to accept points on his licence,
which he had declined and opted for a hearing.
The appellant presented his statement. He did not dispute that he had
committed the offences. On the day in question he had been working since
6am. He normally arranged to hand over the duty telephone and worksheet
to a colleague at his home. On this occasion, his colleague was late so he
went into the house, removed his badge and telephoned his colleague who
was still in the office. To save his colleague having to come to the house, he
had driven to the office and had not taken his badge. He was not in a fare
carrying capacity at the time. The appellant explained that his wife suffered
from a serious illness and he was anxious to get back to her. He was ‘rather
horrible’ to the Licensing Manager, for which he apologised. He had gone
into the office, handed over the telephone and worksheet and the Licensing
Manager had entered as he was about to leave.
The Sub-Committee questioned the Licensing Manager.
(a)
(b)
When he noticed that the appellant was not wearing his badge, the
Licensing Manager did not immediately recognise the appellant. He
asked the appellant for his name which he did not give immediately and
then asked if he had his badge with him and he said he did not. On
checking the Council’s records he realised who the appellant was.
There was no immediate feedback from the appellant to say who he
was or give his badge number. From the point of view of the fare paying
public, if they had approached the appellant and he had been in the
driving seat of the vehicle, it was not obvious he was a bona fide taxi
driver.
The Sub-Committee questioned the appellant.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Mr B Smith asked if the appellant would have been short-tempered with
a member of the public had they approached him. The appellant said
he did not think so. He admitted he was in the wrong. It had been a
fraught 12 hour day. He apologised again to the Licensing Manager, it
was a case of wrong place, wrong time, he just wanted to get back to
his wife.
In response to a comment by Mrs A Sweeney, the appellant stated that
vehicles often parked outside the taxi office, obstructing vehicle and
pedestrian movements. It seemed to be double standards.
The Chairman asked the appellant to confirm why he drove away. The
appellant said he was in an awful mood and wanted to get back to his
wife. He reiterated his reason for going to the office and not having his
badge available.
Licensing Sub-Committee
19
17 December 2013
(d)
His employer was unable to attend the meeting as his witness as he
was with one of the firm’s drivers who was in hospital following an
accident the previous evening.
There being no more questions or statements, the Sub-Committee retired at
11.05 am and returned at 11.16 am.
The Chairman stated that whilst the Sub-Committee considered that the
appellant was incorrectly parked and that he had not acted appropriately at
the time, it noted his difficult personal circumstances. The appellant had
made an unreserved apology to the Licensing Manager.
RESOLVED
That no action be taken.
The meeting concluded at 11.18 am.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing Sub-Committee
20
17 December 2013
Licensing and Appeals Committee
13 January 2014
Agenda Item No_____6_____
CHANGES TO LAW ON CARAVAN SITE LICENSING
Summary:
This report outlines the implications for the Council
in respect of the new law.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
That Members note the report
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Councillor John Lee
All
Licensing Committee Chairman
Councillor Richard Price
Contact
Officer,
number, and e-mail:
telephone Chris Cawley 01263 516252
Chris.cawley@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The licensing of caravan sites is currently undertaken by local authorities under
the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960
1.2.
Caravan sites are designated according to their occupancy permissions which
reflect the planning consent:
Residential
Holiday static
Holiday touring
1.3.
There are approx. 116 caravan sites across North Norfolk. Most of the sites have
been in existence for several decades. Some sites have more than one type of
permission at the same address.
1.4.
Some sites (generally holiday touring ones) operated by certain prescribed
organisations such as the Caravan Club (often on a seasonal basis) are exempt
from site licensing
21
Licensing and Appeals Committee
13 January 2014
2.
Mobile Homes Act 2013
2.1.
This new Act which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2013 amends the law in
relation to residential sites. Residential caravan sites are more often now known
as Mobile Homes or Park Homes sites.
2.2.
The key measures which come into force on 1 April 2014 are as follows:
Current licences will remain in force but new enforcement powers
will apply
A local authority will be able to refuse to grant a licence or approve
a transfer of one when a site changes hands. In making a decision
on this point an authority will have regard to matters prescribed in
regulations.
Local authorities will be able to charge a fee for considering
applications for the grant or transfer of a licence. They will also be
able to charge an annual fee for monitoring and administration of
existing site licences.
Where a site owner is in breach of a condition of a site licence the
local authority will be able to serve a compliance notice, which sets
out the steps required in order for the breach to be remedied. The
authority will also have works in default powers.
Authorities will be able to recover costs of taking enforcement action
including works in default. There will also be powers for an authority
to force a sale, to recover costs and charges if the site owner fails to
pay them when required to do so.
Failure to take the action required under a compliance notice will be
a criminal offence and on conviction a site owner will face a fine
which will not be limited by law. Fines for operating a site without a
licence will not be limited by law. Directors of companies will also be
personally liable for offences related to site licences committed by
their companies.
2.3.
The matters that a local authority must take into consideration in deciding
whether to grant or approve the transfer of a licence will be prescribed in
regulations. The Government has just undertaken consultation on this issue. The
matters are likely to include the following:
Management and financial standing – the suitability of the
purchaser or transferee to hold the site licence
Outstanding licensing issues and debts
Undertakings given to local authorities by the parties to a sale
22
Licensing and Appeals Committee
13 January 2014
3.
Practical implications
3.1.
Local authorities will need to put in place new procedures for dealing with
applications for licences or their transfer in accordance with the new legislative
framework.
3.2.
Authorities will have to develop a fee setting framework and a published fees
policy. Guidance on developing these is expected to be issued by Government
early in 2014.
3.3.
In order to be in a position to operate the new framework it is clear a
considerable amount of preparatory groundwork will need to be undertaken by
officers in North Norfolk. This preparatory work will require significant staff
resources and will not be recoverable in the fees framework. It will require input
from the Environmental Health and Planning departments and probably from
others. Officers are developing a project plan for this work which will need to be
included in the Councils business plan for 2014-15 as a priority task.
3.4.
The preparatory work will need to cover not only the residential sites but holiday
sites as well. Indeed there are a number of locations where both types of site are
located together. There are 166 known caravan sites in the North Norfolk District.
This includes some which were in existence prior to 1960 and so have no licence
conditions. The vast majority of sites were first licenced by the former local
authorities in the area prior to local government reorganisation in 1974. The detail
of records currently held by the Council for these sites varies considerably.
3.5.
Regular routine inspections of caravan sites in North Norfolk has not been
undertaken for over 10 years. A health and safety survey project of sites was
undertaken in 2007. This provided a snapshot of the conditions prevailing on the
sites and the way they were being operated. On many sites the facilities provided
and the management organisation exceeds that prescribed in the site licence.
For others the conditions have not improved in recent years.
3.6.
Action on certain sites has been taken on a reactive basis following complaints
by occupiers or neighbours. Given the limitations of the existing legislation these
have not been easy to resolve and have led to protracted cases. It is anticipated
that the new legislation will resolve such issues in respect of residential sites.
3.7.
An increasing problem is being posed in respect of caravans on some static
holiday sites which have planning consent for all year use (for holiday lettings)
being effectively occupied on a permanent residential basis.
3.8.
Once fees and other guidance from Central Government are available, officers
will develop proposals for North Norfolk which will be brought back to Committee
for agreement before approval by Full Council.
23