Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: Linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
5 May 2016
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 16 May 2016 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
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member
of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be
filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr N Coppack, Mrs H Cox, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah,
Mr P High, Mr J Lee, Mr P Moore, Mr R Price, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Rice, Mr S Shaw, Mr R
Shepherd, Mr B Smith, Mrs V Uprichard
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 3)
To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals
Committee held on 14 March 2016 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing SubCommittee held on 23 February, 23 March and 18 April 2016.
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.
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
To give an oral update on licensing issues.
7.
UPDATE ON TASK & FINISH GROUPS
To give an oral update on task and finish groups.
8.
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.”
9.
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 10.05 am on 14
March 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox (Chairman)
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr R Reynolds
Mr S Shaw
Mr R Shepherd
Mrs V Uprichard
Officers in attendance:
Public Protection Manager, Legal Advisor and Committee Officer
(Regulatory)
33
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr N Coppack, Mr B Hannah, Mr R Price, Mr P Rice and Mr B Smith sent apologies.
34
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
35
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 25
January 2016 and also the minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee
held on 20 January 2016 were approved as correct records and signed by the
Chairman.
Licensing & Appeals Committee - 25 January 2016
The Public Protection Manager updated the Committee on the following issues:
Licensing & Gambling Policies - these policies were now available on the Council’s
website.
Cromer Taxi Rank – progress had been made on the shelter but markings were yet
to be done.
Responses from Responsible Authorities – feedback from the Safeguarding Group
was awaited.
Review of Animal Establishments Licensing in England – the Public Protection
Manager had responded to the consultation.
Charitable Collections – in response to concerns raised by Mr R Reynolds regarding
elderly people being persuaded to enter into direct debit agreements by charities, the
Public Protection Manager explained that as it was not technically collection, there
was no mechanism to deal with it. All Officers could do was to ensure that the
people concerned had permission from the premises and to contact the Police if
Licensing & Appeals Committee
3
16 May 2016
necessary. The Chairman suggested that this was a matter for consideration by
Standards Committee.
RESOLVED
That Standards Committee be requested to consider issues relating to
the collection of bank details by charities.
Licensing Sub-Committee – 20 January 2016
Two applications had been considered by the Sub-Committee where the applicants
had very historic convictions. Mr P W High suggested that such cases should be
determined under delegated powers.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds emphasised the enforcement role of the Committee and
considered that all cases where there were convictions, however historic, should be
properly considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee and that the Sub-Committee
should retire to determine them.
Following discussion of this matter by the Committee in which a number of Members
expressed support for the status quo, Mr High withdrew his suggestion.
36
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
37
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
38
DAY BOARDING FOR DOGS
The Public Protection Manager presented a report seeking adoption of proposed day
boarding conditions which would be appropriate for people undertaking day boarding
of dogs (Doggy Day Care). The conditions relating to traditional dog boarding
establishments and for home boarding establishments did not readily transfer to day
boarding establishments as the modus operandi was sufficiently distinct. The
Council had received enquiries from people wishing to operate day boarding and
unless the conditions were adopted it would not be possible to issue an animal
boarding licence for day care purposes.
The Public Protection Manager answered Members’ questions:






Planning permission would be required for commercial day boarding
establishments.
Hours of operation would be a planning issue.
No requests for cat boarding had been received. Cat boarding would require
different conditions.
A licence would not be required for looking after a friend’s dog.
Fees would be in line with current boarding establishment fees as the
administration process would be the same.
Conditions could be amended to specify that any disinfectant used must be
animal-friendly.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
4
16 May 2016




It was anticipated that licensing of day boarding for dogs would commence in
April.
There were no regulations to control dog walkers.
Dog breeding was subject to separate legislation and was currently the subject of
consultation.
Existing licenced boarding establishments would not require an additional licence
for day boarding.
It was proposed by Mr R Reynolds, seconded by Mr R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the conditions attached at Appendix A to the report, subject to
specifying that animal-friendly disinfectant must be used, and that the
Head of Environmental Health be authorised to add, remove or
otherwise modify the conditions as required on a case by case basis.
39
UPDATE ON TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
Charitable Collections
A meeting of the group had taken place and draft policy had been issued for
consultation.
Hackney Carriage & Private Hire
The policy was being updated.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds requested an update on the Fakenham taxi
rank. The Public Protection Manager reported that the yellow lines were still in place
and Officers were monitoring the taxi parking situation when they were in the area.
31
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.
32
UPDATE ON RIDING ESTABLISHMENT CASE
At the request of Mr R Reynolds, the Legal Advisor gave a further update on a case
where the Licensing Sub-Committee had refused to grant a riding establishment
licence.
The meeting closed at 10.44 am.
__________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
5
16 May 2016
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 23 February
2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mrs V Uprichard
Officers in Attendance:
Public Protection Manager,
Committee Officer (Regulatory)
1
Legal
Advisor
and
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
4
Enquiry regarding signage on vehicle, use of dvd screens for
advertising purposes (WK/150034107)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. She informed the SubCommittee and applicant that she had sought the opinion of Norfolk
Constabulary in respect of the karaoke element of the application and
circulated an email response.
In response to questions by Members, the applicant made the following
comments:






The vehicle in question was a 2011 Volkswagen Passat Estate. He
described the window configuration of the vehicle, size of the stickers and
percentage of window space they would take up.
There would be nothing in the rear window of the vehicle and he no longer
intended to display flyers in the windows. He showed the Sub-Committee
examples of the type and size of the magnetics which he intended to
attach to the vehicle.
Apart from one other firm there was no other taxi firm using car magnetics
in Sheringham, and that Cromer firms had painted logos on their vehicles.
He wanted to stand out from other firms. In terms of the DVD screens, he
wanted to offer something no other firm in Sheringham was offering.
His comment regarding wearing earplugs was meant as a joke and he
had no intention of doing so.
He had been operating for 3 months.
The purpose of installing DVD screens in the vehicle was to advertise
local businesses and as a sideline, he would like to offer karaoke,
although he had had no enquiries for the service.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
6
16 May 2016



He considered that there was no difference between people being drunk
and loud with karaoke or without it.
If the situation got out of hand he would suspend the service and
depending on how it escalated, he would consider whether or not to eject
someone from the vehicle.
Sheringham residents were more respectful than those in Norwich, and
he knew some of the young people’s parents.
The applicant was invited to put his case. He considered that advertising
would be helpful to local businesses, such as b&bs, pubs, restaurants etc.
Music videos would be played on Friday and Saturday nights at low volume to
entertain people using the taxi. He would also use the screens to show films
during airport runs.
In response to questions from the Legal Advisor, the Public Protection
Manager referred to the requirements of the taxi licensing policy regarding
vehicle signage. The applicant was aware that no signage was allowed in the
rear window. The policy was silent with regard to DVD screens and no
previous requests had been received.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.29 am and returned at 10.56 am.
RESOLVED
5
1.
That the request to place stickers in the side rear window relating
to Facebook, PRS and Wi-Fi be approved, to take up no greater
space than A5.
2.
That the placing of magnetic signs on the bonnet, doors and
tailgate be approved.
3.
That the use of DVD screens to show films and advertise local
businesses be approved.
4.
That the request to offer karaoke be refused on grounds that the
Sub-Committee considers it would be distracting and present a
safety risk.
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.
6
Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/150032739)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
7
16 May 2016
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. She informed the Sub-Committee that the speed awareness course
declared by the applicant on the application form and the three penalty points
revealed on his DVLA check (but not declared on the application form) related
to separate speeding offences. The applicant’s DBS report also merited
further consideration. One reference had now been received, which was
circulated to the Sub-Committee. The Public Protection Manager stated that
a second reference would be required before a licence could be issued.
The Chairman referred to the signed declaration on the application form that
the applicant had checked the form and believed it to be correct. However,
the applicant had failed to declare his DVLA penalty points in addition to the
speed awareness course. He stated that the Sub-Committee took a dim view
of this and stressed the serious nature of the licensing process, the need to
protect the public and to have confidence that taxi drivers were also fit to
protect the public. He also referred to the fact that only one reference had
been provided.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the applicant stated that he could
not remember the date of the speed awareness course.
The applicant presented his case. He loved working with people, meeting
new friends, and helping on a committee. He considered that taxi driving was
a job which would suit him.
In answer to Members’ questions, the applicant explained that the speed
awareness course related to an offence of doing 60mph in a 50mph zone and
that his second speeding offence had occurred in the middle of a restricted
zone. He explained that the offences listed on his DBS report were related to
a marital issue.
The Legal Advisor asked the applicant why he did not declare on his
application form the speeding offence for which he received three penalty
points. The applicant replied that he probably forgot.
The Sub-Committee retired at 11.20 am and returned at 11.52 am.
The Chairman explained that a taxi driver was a person in a position of trust.
The Sub-Committee had considered it unlikely that the applicant would forget
he had committed two speeding offences in a short time, and noted that the
applicant had only held a driving licence for three years.
RESOLVED
That the application be refused.
The Chairman explained that the decision did not preclude the applicant from
reapplying in the future when he had more driving experience. The Legal
Advisor advised the applicant of his right of appeal.
7
Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/150032771)
Present: Applicant and supporter
Licensing & Appeals Committee
8
16 May 2016
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
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 revealed historic offences which had not been
declared on his application form. She referred to the applicant’s health
issues.
In response to questions by the Sub-Committee, the applicant confirmed that
his HGV licence had been suspended because of his medical issues, but he
was allowed to drive 7.5 tonne vehicles. He clarified the nature of his medical
issues and confirmed that he adhered to his treatment regime. He had not
declared his historic offences as he had misread the form and thought he only
had to declare those related to his driving.
The applicant presented his case. He wished to carry on with a lighter job
than driving lorries but still wished to carry on providing a service to the
community. At the time of his heart attack he had been providing a hospital
car service and enjoyed doing so.
The Sub-Committee retired at 12.10 pm and returned at 12.20 pm.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
The meeting was adjourned at 12.22 pm for a short break, and resumed at
12.33 pm.
8
Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or Private Hire
Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/16000382)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicant had
omitted from his application form some of the matters which had been
disclosed in his DBS report. She referred to his medical report and certificate
of fitness to drive.
The applicant presented his case. He thought his convictions had been spent
and that he did not need to disclose them. He had not looked at his DBS
report and did not realise the offences were recorded, otherwise he would
have included them. He had been granted a door supervisor’s licence.
In response to a question by Councillor R Reynolds, the applicant explained
that his (now spent) speeding conviction occurred when he was caught in the
flow of traffic on Dartford Bridge.
In respect of the applicant’s non-disclosure of convictions on his DBS report,
the Public Protection Manager explained that some offences were not classed
as spent for certain applications.
The Sub-Committee retired at 12.45 pm and returned at 12.50 pm.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
9
16 May 2016
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
The meeting closed at 12.52 pm.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
10
16 May 2016
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 23 March 2016 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr P Moore (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Officers in Attendance:
Public Protection Manager, Legal Advisor, Licensing
Enforcement Officer and Committee Officer (Regulatory)
1
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
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/160006380)
Present: Applicant
The Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers introduced themselves.
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 his driving licence which had been
issued for one year.
She outlined the Sub-Committee’s options for
determining this application.
The applicant presented his case and responded to questions by the SubCommittee and Legal Advisor. He explained that his driving licence was due
for renewal. He explained the circumstances of his convictions which arose
from a domestic argument when he was 18 years old. It was the only thing he
had done wrong and he had now grown up. He was now a father and had
Licensing & Appeals Committee
11
16 May 2016
responsibilities. He was sure he could be trusted and help people get around
Norfolk safely.
There were no further questions and the applicant did not wish to make a
closing statement.
The Legal Advisor stated that she had no legal advice which she wished to
give to the Sub-Committee at this stage.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.17 am and returned at 10.42 am.
RESOLVED
That the application be approved.
6
READMITTANCE OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
The press and public were readmitted to the meeting.
7
Application for a new Premises Licence – The Reading Room, The Old
Rectory, Church Road, Alby, Norfolk NR11 7HF
Present:
Mr Simon Williams and Mrs Joanne Williams (Applicants)
Objectors:
Mr Barry FitzPatrick (Parish Council Chairman)
Mr Damien Riley-Smith
Mr Roy Benns
Mr Michael England
Mr Angus Mackenzie
Observers:
Mrs Esther Benns
Mr William Cutts (Parish Council)
District Councillor:
Mr Norman Smith
Press:
Mr Miles Jermy
The Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers introduced themselves.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the
procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicants had
applied for a new premises licence in respect of The Reading Room, The Old
Rectory, Alby in accordance with the operating schedule set out in the report.
She referred to comments which had been raised in respect of a restrictive
covenant on the building and emphasised that this was not an issue which
could be taken into account by the Sub-Committee. In addition to the
mandatory and suggested conditions listed in the report, the applicants had
Licensing & Appeals Committee
12
16 May 2016
agreed to accept a condition requested by the NNDC Environmental
Protection Team to require external windows and doors to be kept closed.
The Public Protection Manager explained that a representation sent in by Mr
Graham Allen had been incorrectly attributed to Ms A Hunt in the report. This
representation related to the restrictive covenant and was therefore not
relevant to this application.
Addresses had been provided within the representations for G England and J
England and these were therefore considered valid representations.
Councillor P W Moore stated that Mr Allen was a member of the Standards
Committee and was therefore known to him.
The Public Protection Manager circulated a map indicating the location of the
premises and objectors’ properties.
Mrs Joanne Williams presented the applicants’ case:





















The Reading Room was in the grounds of the applicants’ home.
It would be a small, intimate wedding venue with a maximum capacity of
80 people, although the applicants did not envisage this number.
The applicants were renovating and extending the building, which was in
a state of disrepair, to secure its future.
It would bring a number of weddings and blessings to the church and was
supported by the PCC, parish priest and churchwarden.
Local businesses were very supportive and recognised the lack of this
sort of venue in Norfolk.
The premises would be open to suppliers from 9am for setting up.
Activities would stop at 11pm with everybody off the premises by
midnight.
Beverages would be arranged through a catering company.
There would be some live music.
The applicants would highlight the responsibility of parents/guardians to
look after children.
Signs would be erected asking for consideration for neighbours when
leaving the venue and supervision of the car park would take place.
A taxi booking service would be provided.
The venue would be locked when not in use, appropriate fire and safety
measures would be installed and private areas on site clearly signed.
The building was of brick construction with wooden and stone windows. It
would be repaired to modern standards to prevent noise.
DJs and live bands would be asked to keep noise to a reasonable level.
Low level lighting would be installed to prevent light pollution.
Private areas would be hedged or fenced and a 2.5m fence erected along
the boundary.
There would be no access to the church from the venue.
Plans had been agreed with the Planning Department.
Licenced caterers would be used and any doorperson employed would be
trained to ensure ID was sought from anyone who appeared under-age.
Mr Williams is the Designated Premises Supervisor.
Everything would be adhered to and the applicants would be on hand to
ensure all guests left the site promptly.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
13
16 May 2016
Mr and Mrs Williams answered questions from Officers, the Sub-Committee
and objectors.












An additional condition to be attached to the licence, if granted, relating to
verification of age was suggested by the Public Protection Manager and
accepted by the applicants.
In comparison with other venues this was a small number and reiterated
that she did not envisage as many as 80 people at most events.
At the request of an objector, Simon Williams read a letter from Reverend
Canon Paul Thomas. The objector did not consider that the letter
supported the scale of the events proposed by the applicants. The
Chairman requested a copy of the letter.
The number of events per year was unknown at the moment.
Marketing would commence in April and it was expected that weddings
would be booked in for 2017. The applicants had spent some time with
another, larger, venue in West Norfolk and if their venture worked at the
same scale there could be 35 weddings a year.
Policing of the car park – signage would be erected asking people to be
quiet.
There would be limited use of the lane beside the church, known locally
as “Bookshop Lane” but it would not be the main use.
A 60m length 2.5m high screen would be erected (required by planning).
This would run inside the hedge.
It was not intended to inform the community of the dates of all events.
Other businesses did not have to do so.
The Legal Advisor confirmed that there was no legal requirement to
provide notification.
There was access for emergency vehicles along the side of the church or
via the drive to the house.
The applicants had owned the premises for 1 year and 3 months. They
had held no events there.
The applicants had been told by residents and the family who had
previously lived at The Old Rectory that events had been held in the past
in conjunction with the church but they did not know the details.
Cllr Norman Smith, the local Member, stated that he had spent many years
promoting small businesses and it hurt him to oppose this application.
However, he was very concerned with regard to visibility from the service
access and referred to the concerns raised by local residents with regard to
potential noise nuisance.
The Interested Parties were invited to make their representations:
Roy Benns:
 He lived opposite the car park.
 He had previous experience of a similar venue where he had previously
lived and had moved to Alby for a peaceful life.
 Noise from live bands and recorded music would affect his sleep and
enjoyment of his property, possibly for 365 days a year.
 The car park surface was proposed to be gravel and would be extremely
noisy and attractive to “boy racers”.
 Car lights, banging doors and car alarms would disturb his sleep and
radios of taxis and the car park attendant would be heard.
 People attending graves in the churchyard would have their peace
disturbed.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
14
16 May 2016

The entrance for service vehicles had not been given thought.
Mike England:
 He lived opposite the car park.
 He worked as a farm manager and considered that the enjoyment of his
possessions and right to a reasonable night’s sleep would be affected.
 He referred to statistics regarding noise levels. He had offered to have a
noise meter installed in his property and considered that if it had been
done, the applicants would have seen what they were doing.
 Noise would possibly cause disturbance to his livestock.
 Lack of sleep can cause physical and mental health issues. He worked
long hours in a dangerous industry and could not see how he would get
enough rest to make business decisions and work safely.
 He questioned how the proposal would enhance the area and bring
benefits to outweigh the disbenefits to himself and the local community.
 He expressed concerns regarding public safety.
Angus Mackenzie:
 He had been a resident of Alby with Thwaite since 1992.
 Mr Mackenzie distributed a document containing photographs and
information to support his case which he referred to during his
representation.
 Concerns regarding speed and volume of traffic.
 Concerns regarding visibility at the service road junction.
 Critical distances for visibility splays could not be achieved without moving
gravestones.
 Visibility from the car park would be obscured by a tree.
 The use of the lane as a service road would turn a dangerous junction into
a lethal one.
 Urged rejection on public safety grounds.
Damien Riley-Smith:
 He lived in Dovehouse Lane and passed the church every day.
 The most dangerous point on the road was outside the church and he
often had to swerve.
 The junction would become a death trap if used as an access point.
 Protection of children from harm was applicable in relation to the road.
He feared for the safety of children particularly from an unmonitored site.
 He fully appreciated, empathised and sympathised with the other
speakers.
 Events at Blickling Park could be heard more than 4 miles away.
 The proposal would ruin one of the most peaceful parts of North Norfolk.
 Windows and doors would be open in the summer causing disturbance to
peace and sleep.
 He was saddened to hear that one of his daily views would be obscured
by a fence.
 He had evidence that the Diocese was not happy with the proposed use
and would not lift the restrictive covenant.
The Legal Advisor clarified that the Highway Authority was not a statutory
consultee in the Licensing process. Highway safety issues, including the
visibility splay, were relevant to the planning process and the Highway
Authority would have been involved in that process. The public safety
element for consideration by the Sub-Committee related to the premises
Licensing & Appeals Committee
15
16 May 2016
rather than the wider highway issues and it was unfair to make the
applications responsible for issues which were beyond their control.
Barry FitzPatrick (Parish Council):
 Deliveries are unlikely to be restricted to caterers but will include flowers
etc.
 Prevention of public nuisance is the main concern of the Parish Council.
 There is another controversial wedding venue only 1000 metres away
which has had to erect earth barriers but is still a problem.
 The likelihood of venue harmonising with the community is nil.
 The application is for 365 days a year, not 35.
 The community will have no warning and will wake up to the noise if the
windows are open or noise is not contained.
 It is not conceivable that the windows will not be opened. The applicants’
assurances have no validity.
 If the applicants’ figures are accurate it will be a very busy venue.
 The Parish Council has challenged the timing of the licence 12 noon to
midnight. It is unlikely that there will be a peaceful exit from the car park if
people have been consuming alcohol for 12 hours. Reducing hours is
unlikely to work and is dependent on enforcement.
 Concerns regarding how the applicants will enforce.
 Concern is not only for the local community but for wider community as
well as sound will travel far further than the Old Rectory.
 The Parish Council is opposed to this application.
The Public Protection Manager reminded the Sub-Committee that it was duty
bound to consider the four licensing objectives. There was primary legislation
in place to deal with noise nuisance. The Public Protection Team had
requested a condition to keep doors and windows closed. This would be
monitored and there would be an opportunity to enforce in the event of issues
in the future.
In response to concerns raised by an objector regarding the effectiveness of
noise control measures and enforcement issues, the Legal Advisor stated that
the Sub-Committee appreciated the concerns, but this was not the forum to
consider the effectiveness or otherwise of enforcement options. Other
legislation was in place which allowed the Council and the Police to take
action if conditions were breached.
Mrs Williams stated that the windows were leaded stained glass it would not
be possible to open them.
The parties were invited to present their closing statements.
Mr Riley-Smith stated that his business was running events worldwide. It was
not possible to self-regulate events. He referred to concerns regarding
prevention of public nuisance, prevention of crime and disorder and noise
control. There was a fine line between being under control and out of control.
Linked with the distance from the venue to the car park, he considered it
would be difficult to manage. He considered that for every event where
deliveries were made, there could be between 20-40 entries and exits.
Mr England reiterated his concerns regarding the effect on his sleep and his
ability to do his job as a result.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
16
16 May 2016
The applicants stated that they were a genuine, professional couple who
wanted to bring their children up in the countryside. Having spoken to local
businesses there was a need for more wedding venues. They considered the
business would benefit the church and bring more income to the area. It was
welcome and uplifting to have the support of the church and they were
working with everyone to be sympathetic to the building and the surrounding
area.
The Legal Advisor reiterated that the Sub-Committee would determine the
matter based on the four licensing objectives and was not allowed to consider
matters which fell outside these objectives.
The Sub-Committee retired at 12.50 pm and returned at 2.15 pm.
The Chairman read the decision, a copy of which would be sent to each of the
interested parties. The Sub-Committee did not feel justified in refusing the
application, but had some concerns and had therefore granted the licence
with reduced hours.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted, subject to licensed activities to cease at
2300 hours Sunday to Thursday save where New Year’s Eve falls on one
of those days and subject to the following conditions:
 The mandatory conditions applicable under the Licensing Act
2003.
 The conditions consistent with the operating schedule.
 The condition requested by Environmental Health (Environmental
Protection Team) requiring all external doors and windows in all
rooms to remain closed, save for access and egress, from 22:00
hours, when events involving amplified music or speech are
taking place.
The meeting closed at 2.20 pm.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
17
16 May 2016
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 18 April 2016 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mrs H Cox (Chairman)
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr S Shaw
Officers in Attendance:
Public Protection Manager,
Committee Officer (Regulatory)
1
Legal
Advisor
and
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
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/160005640)
Present: Applicant
The Public Protection Manager circulated copies of the applicant’s birth
certificate.
The Chairman introduced 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 for a licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North
Norfolk. He had also applied for an Operator’s Licence. He had previously
held a taxi licence in North Norfolk but had allowed it to lapse. His DBS
report had raised issues which required further consideration, although these
were historic in nature. She referred to his medical report and stated that his
conditions had been fully investigated and he had been passed fit to drive.
She outlined the Sub-Committee’s options for determining this application.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
18
16 May 2016
The applicant explained the circumstances of his offences.
The Chairman explained that although the offences in this case were
relatively minor, the system ensured that more serious issues were picked up.
The applicant explained that he had been a taxi driver for 36 years. He would
be operating an executive hire service and long distance travel.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.09 am and returned at 10.15 am.
RESOLVED
That the applications be approved.
6
Review of and Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or
Private Hire Vehicles in North Norfolk (WK/160009779)
Present: Applicant
The Chairman introduced 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 a
review of and application for renewal of the applicant’s taxi driver’s licence
where the licence had been endorsed with 12 North Norfolk District Council
penalty points for failing to disclose DVLA motoring convictions. She outlined
the Sub-Committee’s options for reviewing the applicant’s current licence and
determining the renewal application.
In response to questions by the Sub-Committee, the applicant explained that
his three speeding offences related to speeding in a 30 mph limit at between
33 and 35 mph. All had occurred when he was driving a taxi but he could not
remember if he was carrying passengers as he had not been stopped at the
time of the offences.
The applicant said he had made a mistake for which he was sorry. He had
learned that he needed to read the Taxi Handbook better.
The Public Protection Manager handed to the Sub-Committee a letter from a
Driving Standards Agency approved Driving Instructor confirming that the
applicant had attended a refresher lesson on Planning and Speed awareness
in which he had done very well and the Instructor felt very safe with his
driving.
The applicant explained that he had read in the Handbook that he could be
required to attend a course and so he had decided to do so to see if he could
improve. He outlined the subjects covered on the course.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Public
Protection Manager stated that if additional NNDC penalty points were added
the applicant would be referred to the Sub-Committee in relation to driving
standards.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
19
16 May 2016
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones reminded the applicant that if he incurred more
DVLA points he would receive an automatic ban.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.31 am and returned at 10.38 am.
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee acknowledged that the
applicant had apologised for his transgressions and had voluntarily
undertaken a speed awareness course, and reminded him to read the policies
carefully.
RESOLVED
That the application be approved.
The meeting closed at 10.39 am.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
20
16 May 2016