Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: Linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
10 June 2015
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 22 June 2015 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 1)
To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals
Committee held on 2 March 2015 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing SubCommittee held on 24 February 2015.
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 10.00 am on 2
March 2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr P Moore
Miss P Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
Head of Environmental Health, Legal Advisor and Regulatory
Officer
25
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Hannah sent apologies.
26
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
27
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 10
November 2014 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committee
held on 19 November and 16 December 2014 and 21 January 2015 were approved
as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
The Chairman stated that this was the last meeting of the Licensing & Appeals
Committee under the current administration, and thanked everyone for their hard
work.
Mrs H Cox thanked Members who had substituted for her on the Licensing SubCommittees when she had to declare interests.
28
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
29
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
30
MODEL STANDARDS 2009 FOR CARAVAN SITES
Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial interest as he was a member of a
number of electrical associations which were involved with the caravan industry.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
1
22 June 2015
The Head of Environmental Health introduced the report, which sought adoption of
the Department of Communities and Local Government “Model Standards 2008 for
Caravan Sites in England”, and set out a process for applying appropriate
standards/conditions to new and existing Caravan Site Licences within North Norfolk
for consideration by the Committee. He explained that the procedure would allow the
Public Protection Manager to agree and impose conditions on new sites, or existing
sites where the licence was being upgraded, if there were no representations from
the site owners. If there was disagreement, the matter would be brought before the
Committee. The Public Protection Manager could also disapply conditions if they
were not appropriate or relevant.
The Committee discussed the report. The Head of Environmental Health answered
Members’ questions and made the following points:













Standards would be applied to gypsy and traveller sites if they were occupied on
a permanent basis, subject to any necessary adjustments for cultural reasons.
The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act covered site licence
requirements for gypsies and travellers and agricultural workers. Some were
excluded from the requirements for a site licence. These sites would be
considered on their merits.
Permanent residences were caught by the legislation, but those sites which were
not occupied as a permanent residence were not.
No site licence would be issued without the necessary planning permission being
in place.
For sites where there was mixed usage, Officers would consider the most
appropriate conditions for the site. It would not be appropriate to impose different
conditions for different elements of the site and the higher standards would be
used where there was mostly permanent residential. They would be considered
on a case by case basis.
A “site” could be one caravan, but realistically it would tend to be more than one.
Legislation around caravan sites has always worked around who is occupying it.
Officers must have regard to who is occupying a caravan when deciding how it
should be licenced.
The old and new systems were not significantly different. The Government had
reviewed the model conditions taking into account the improvements in
technology, design and modern practices. There were differences in respect of
issues such as fire precautions, amenities and density. It was a case of updating
and refreshing of the standards and conditions, rather than a fundamental review.
Some site operators were very conscious of the need to comply with legal
requirements. Some were more interested in looking at ways to increase their
business and the last thing on their minds was notifying the licensing authority of
changes of layout etc. The adoption of the model standards was the first part in
the processes of a fundamental review of caravan site licences. All sites would
be checked in order to ensure they were complying with legislation and were up
to date with conditions..
A Licensing Enforcement Officer had been appointed and the authority was now
more proactive.
Guidelines could be produced for residential sites so that everyone was aware of
the requirements.
The Fire Service had responsibility for all premises. The only reason the
Licensing Authority would impose a fire safety condition would be as a fall back in
cases which were not covered by the Fire Service.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
2
22 June 2015





Concern was raised with regard to lack of clarity with regard to requirements
imposed by other agencies. The Licensing Team would try to address issues with
stakeholders to get clarity for site owners.
The Mobile Homes Act gave Licensing Authorities the ability to charge for
licences. A fee for permanent residential sites had been adopted. The Public
Protection Manager was carrying out work on this matter and it was anticipated
that a report would be brought to the Committee for further consideration on the
fee structure. Fees were not being imposed at the present time.
Concerns were raised regarding letters which had been sent out to people
concerning fees. The Head of Environmental Health stated that he did not have
up to date information and an update would be provided when the Public
Protection Manager returned from leave.
Park homes and static caravans which had bricked bases and services
connected met the definition of ‘caravan’ as they were in theory still capable of
being towed. They were no longer caravans if they exceeded a certain size.
There had been no serious incidents on caravan sites as far as the Head of
Environmental Health was aware.
The Head of Environmental Health explained that NNDC owned sites were not
licenced as legislation did not allow licensing of sites in the licensing authority’s
ownership.
Members expressed concern that there were no licensing requirements applied to
NNDC’s sites whereas commercial sites had to be licensed. The Chairman
considered it would be failing in the Council’s duty of transparency to adopt model
standards for other sites which could not be applied to the Council’s own sites. He
suggested that Full Council be requested to consider seeking an independent
assessment of the Council’s sites with the findings reported back to an appropriate
Committee.
With regard to the Council’s site at Pudding Norton, the Head of Environmental
Health stated that a great deal of work had been done with Property Services to
ensure that they were aware of the requirements. Miss B Palmer, local Member for
the Pudding Norton site, stated that although much work had been done, some
problems, such as rats, remained.
Mr P Moore asked what the Council’s legal position would be if there was a serious
incident on its own sites and whether the Council had a duty to ensure that the sites
were safe and healthy.
The Head of Environmental Health stated that even though NNDC sites were outside
the licensing regime, they had to comply with rules and regulations which applied to
any other business. Eg. gas cylinders were within the remit of Health and Safety
legislation. As a local authority NNDC would not wish to be in a position of knowingly
operating outside the law.
Mr R Reynolds stated that there were already requirements and conditions in place,
both statutory and non-statutory. He suggested that these should be looked at and
documented.
The Legal Advisor advised that these issues were outside the remit of the report and
that the Committee should consider the adoption of the recommendations with regard
to licensed sites.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
3
22 June 2015
The Head of Environmental Health suggested that discussions take place with the
Head of Assets and Leisure issues regarding compliance with the standards. If the
model standards were adopted, the Council should move towards these standards
for its own sites. He suggested that an update as to the current position be sought
from the Head of Assets and Leisure and a report be brought to the Committee as an
alternative to pursuing the matter through another Committee or Full Council. The
Committee indicated that it was agreeable to this suggestion.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs H Cox and
RESOLVED
1. That the Model Standards 2008 for Caravan Sites in England for caravan
sites within North Norfolk for permanent residential use be adopted.
2. That the Public Protection Manager be given delegated authority to agree
and impose conditions on new Caravan Site Licences or to revise
conditions on existing Caravan Site Licences where no representations
have been received or on agreement with the site operator following receipt
of representations from the consultation process.
3. That in the event of agreement not being reached with the site operator
following receipt of representations from the consultation process, a
Licensing Panel be convened to determine the imposition of conditions on
new Site Licences or alteration to the conditions on an existing Caravan
Site Licence.
4. That the Public Protection Manager be given delegated authority to
disapply one or more conditions for specific sites where considered
necessary.
31
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
The Head of Environmental Health updated the Committee on the following issues:
Changes to Delegated Authority – Hackney Carriage/Private Hire drivers’ licences
No incidents had occurred which had resulted in the revocation of hackney carriage
or private hire drivers’ licences under the delegated powers granted at the meeting
on 10 November. However, a serious allegation had been made against a driver and
the process had been commenced, but he had voluntarily surrendered his licence
prior to revocation.
Changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service
The new system was working very effectively and had speeded up the process,
although the cost to customers was slightly higher.
Taxi testing
The taxi test station contract was due for renewal, with the option to extend it for one
year. Tender documentation was in the course of preparation and a notice had been
published seeking expressions of interest.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
4
22 June 2015
Comments had been received from the taxi trade regarding the lack of choice as to
where they took their vehicles for testing, which involved a great deal of down time
for some firms in bringing their vehicles to Sheringham. There was now an
opportunity to explore the possibility of having a number of testing stations across the
District.
Workload issues
Some of the cases heard by the licensing panels recently had involved a significant
volume of preparation because of the complexity of the cases. Some cases which
had not been heard as they had been withdrawn or circumstances had changed had
also involved a large amount of preparation. The Head of Environmental Health paid
tribute to the Licensing Team for their work on these cases.
Mr R Shepherd referred to an application for a dog breeding establishment which
raised issues which he considered should be dealt with elsewhere, rather than by the
Licensing Sub-Committee.
The Legal Advisor stated that this had been an application for a dog breeding licence
and a great deal of work had been done by Officers as was required in connection
with such an application, and the application had been withdrawn prior to the hearing,
possibly as a result of this work. Issues had been raised which could possibly
constitute a criminal offence and Officers were liaising with other organisations.
Mr Shepherd considered that, having gathered the evidence, the Legal Advisor
should be requested to consider if it raised issues which should be dealt with by
another body.
The Head of Environmental Health stated that it was necessary to ensure that the
Licensing Sub-Committee only received information which was relevant to its
determination of a licensing application. This did not preclude working with other
organisations in dealing with related issues.
32
UPDATE ON TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
The Alternative Trading Task and Finish Group met in December 2014. No other
groups had met.
The Public Protection Manager was conscious of the need to move forward with the
remaining groups. However, other issues had taken precedence over some of the
development work.
The meeting closed at 11.27 am.
___________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
5
22 June 2015
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 24 February
2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 11.30 am.
Sub-Committee
Mr B Hannah (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Shepherd
Officers in Attendance:
Legal Advisor, Public Protection Manager
Regulatory Officer
Licensing Enforcement Officer for minute 6 only
1
and
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
4
WITHDRAWN APPLICATION
The following application had been withdrawn prior to the hearing:
Fern Bank Dog Breeding, Fern Bank Riding School, Carr Lane, Roughton,
Norfolk, NR11 8PG (WK/140015214) – Application for a licence to keep a
breeding establishment for dogs
5
PH137, (WK/150000365) – APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE
HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH
NORFOLK
Present: Mr A Bales (applicant)
The Chairman introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the
procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report. The applicant had
applied to renew a licence for his vehicle PH137. However, the signage in
the rear window did not meet the requirements of NNDC’s Hackney Carriage
and Private Hire Policy and Handbook and the vehicle had failed its test on
that basis. The applicant had challenged this policy and the matter had
therefore been referred to the Sub-Committee.
There being no questions to the Officers, the applicant was invited to put his
case.
The applicant stated that the signage had been done two years ago. He had
been requested to remove the word “taxi” from the signage as the vehicle was
for private hire only, which he had done. The vehicle had passed its previous
tests. The rear window sign was the only signage on the vehicle and
Licensing & Appeals Committee
6
22 June 2015
advertised the airport side of the business. It did not obscure the view from
the rear window, and NNDC had licenced one of his vehicles in the past
which had no rear windows at all. He would remove the sign if required to do
so, but wished to advertise his business.
The applicant answered Members’ questions.





The signage was specially designed for windows and was see-through.
The driver could see vehicles behind the vehicle and pedestrians crossing
the road.
The vehicle seated 8 people.
He had been asked to remove the word ‘taxi’ from the sign, but nobody
minded the signage itself until the vehicle went to Henries for testing.
The vehicle was tested annually and had passed once, as far as he was
aware, with the signage in place.
The signage had been in place prior to the introduction of the policy.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Public Protection Manager
explained that the policy had been in force since July 2012. She had only
been in post for one year and could not therefore comment on what had
happened in the past. She had, however, submitted a report to the Licensing
& Appeals Committee seeking discretion with regard to vehicle signage but it
was resolved to adhere to the existing policy. The policy was due for review
during 2015 and the taxi industry would be invited to make representations.
Councillor R Shepherd asked how much freedom the vehicle examiners had
in respect of assessing visibility through the windows.
The Public Protection Manager stated that there was no freedom in terms of
vehicle signage. Any queries should be reported to NNDC for decision.
Private hire vehicles could not carry the word ‘taxi’ as it could mislead the
public.
There were no further questions, and the applicant did not wish to make a
closing statement.
The Public Protection Manager informed the Sub-Committee that the
applicant had brought the vehicle in question with him if they wished to view
it.
The Sub-Committee left the Council Chamber with the applicant and Public
Protection Manager to view the vehicle.
Following the inspection, the Sub-Committee retired at 11.53 am and returned
at 12.09 pm.
The Legal Advisor stated that she had not provided legal advice to the SubCommittee. She presented the decision, and the reasons for it, on behalf of
the Chairman.
RESOLVED
That the request be refused.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the licence would not be refused
but the applicant would be required to remove the signage from the vehicle.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
7
22 June 2015
6
APPLICATION FOR A NEW PREMISES LICENCE - DEER'S GLADE
CARAVAN & CAMPING PARK, WHITE POST ROAD, HANWORTH,
NORFOLK, NR11 7HN
Present:
Supporting: Mr David Attew, Mrs Heather Attew, Mr Mike Attew and two
other persons
Objecting: Mr David Doak, Mr Gerard Stamp, Mrs Alison Brett, Mr Brian Platts
and Mr Luke Wilcox (representing Mr I Braka) and 16 other persons
Councillor N Smith (local Member)
Mr Tony Grover, Licensing Officer, Norfolk Constabulary
The Chairman introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor outlined the purpose of the hearing and explained the
procedure for the meeting.
The Public Protection Manager presented the report, which related to an
application for a premises licence in respect of Deer’s Glade Caravan and
Camping Park and Muntjac Meadow, Hanworth. She stated that it was not
the applicant’s intention to use Muntjac Meadow on a daily basis. Mrs
Heather Attew would act as premises supervisor and personal licence holder.
With regard to the objections which had been raised, the Public Protection
Manager stated that those relating to the Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) were not relevant to licensing and should not be considered at this
meeting. The SSSI would be dealt with separately as a planning issue at the
appropriate time.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the applicants had agreed to the
conditions proposed by the Environmental Protection Team to satisfy the
requirement to prevent public nuisance.
There were no questions from any of the parties to the Public Protection
Manager.
The Chairman invited the applicants to put their case.
Mrs Heather Attew stated that she would like to reassure the objectors and
explain the sort of people they were, ethos of the business and the type of
events which would be held. She made the following points:






The family were long-established in the area.
Tourism was a necessary diversification of their farming business.
They were passionate about the wonderful area of the country in which
they lived and worked, and thought through very carefully the impact of
their decisions on the locality, wildlife etc.
Events had been held under Temporary Event Notices (TENs) and the
reason for applying for a permanent licence was to reduce their workload
and that of the Council.
The application had been amended in consultation with the Licensing
Officer and Police.
It was only intended to allow music on 10 events per year, and it would
not be every weekend during the summer. Some events would not
include music.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
8
22 June 2015



The meadow had enabled people to hold weddings in a nice area. They
were family occasions and not rowdy. No 18th or 21st birthday parties,
stag or hen parties or raves would be allowed.
Charitable/fundraising events were held for local causes. The bonfire and
fireworks display had been running for 20 years.
No complaints had been received.
Mrs Attew responded to points raised in the objectors’ correspondence:












No complaints had been received from the livery yard in respect of
disturbance to horses by firework noise. Their own animals were not
disturbed by it.
Only some campers went to one local pub; these were mainly older
guests who did not drop bottles and cans. Staff regularly picked up litter
in White Post Road, much of which could be thrown from passing cars.
The notice had been made using guidelines from NNDC and was not
done in an underhand way.
The claim that the site was originally a Caravan Club site was incorrect. It
had been used by caravan rallies which brought their own permission
from DEFRA.
The site was not in a Conservation Area.
Three events had been held in 2014 and four in 2013, not on “every
weekend throughout the summer”. The marquee was not ‘over-used’.
It was agreed that the countryside was no place for a nightclub. Mrs
Attew did not think charity events and weddings could be deemed a
nightclub.
The fireworks and bonfire events were publicised by a large notice
adjacent to the A140, press, radio and social media.
Guests were not actively encouraged to trespass and ignore signs.
Guests were told that Gunton Park was private. They were told about the
church and also the sawmill when it was open.
It was not true that the Police called regularly. There were three incidents
in the last year, which was a small number considering the number of
guests.
No planning consent was specifically refused for the site. Hanworth Fen
was originally considered and the application amended to the site on the
opposite side of White Post Road.
The applicants had not been aware that planning permission was required
for Muntjac Meadow and were now in the process of submitting a
planning application.
Councillor N Smith asked if a licence would be transferred if the present
owners sold or leased the site.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the licence would need to be
transferred or surrendered if no longer required.
The Chairman invited questions to the applicants.
Mr B Platts referred to complaints from local residents and from people
staying at the site regarding noise at Deer’s Glade. He stated that this had
not been addressed and continued unabated. He asked how the applicants
could be expected to control noise from the marquee and fireworks, and why
noise from the marquee would be less intrusive than that from another
farmer’s celebration considerably further away.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
9
22 June 2015
Mr D Attew stated that he was unsure as to whether Mr Platts was referring to
noise from children playing, music or something else. However, children on
the playground could be very noisy on a summer evening and it was very
difficult to stop children at play. Mr M Attew stated that the park had never
been subject to an abatement order or done anything unacceptable.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to promotional materials advertising the park
which contained wording including ‘idyllic’, ‘romantic’, ‘wildlife conservation’,
‘without the distraction of amusement halls or bars’. He asked if these
statements held good. Mr D Attew confirmed that they did.
The Chairman asked for comments regarding alleged fighting and the police
being called. Mr D Attew stated that he could not recall a fight, but there had
been a domestic incident at Muntjac Meadow where the police were called by
one of the family members. Mr M Attew stated that three people had died on
the park, and they had been robbed on one occasion. The police had been
called for these incidents.
Councillor B Jarvis asked how many people stayed on the site over the
course of a year. Mr D Attew stated that it was around 30,000, with 400
people on site at a time during the summer months.
The Chairman asked if the applicants went out to talk to the community. Mrs
H Attew stated that they did not go out to speak to people, except for those
they saw out and about, but were very open to people coming to talk to them
to voice their concerns. Mr D Attew stated that their son was a member of the
Parish Council, and they attended meetings.
Mrs A Brett emphasised that the objectors were country people as well as the
applicants and celebrated country life. She referred to the David Bellamy
Award which had been won by the park and considered that everything the
applicants did went against everything the Award stood for.
Mr D Attew stated that the park had won the David Bellamy Gold Award for
six years in succession. He stated that they cared for the countryside and
considered it was rather harsh to say that having weddings and celebrations
in the marquee was not caring for the countryside.
Mr G Stamp requested that the applicants acknowledge that there were 30
houses, not including their family, within earshot of Muntjac Meadow if music
were played there.
Mr D Attew stated that if there were, he acknowledged it and took it very
seriously. The applicants worked with Environmental Health in positioning the
music system and bands, and had a list of bands which they recommended
who had an understanding of what the applicants represented. The
applicants were on site whilst music was being played to ensure that noise
was kept to an absolute minimum.
Mr M Attew stated that he bred and kept a large number of ornamental
waterfowl, with one of the largest collections in the country. He supplied birds
to places, such as London and the Royal Parks, where they were subjected to
more noise than they experienced at Muntjac Meadow. He was an authority
on the subject, having spent his whole life in the countryside nurturing wildlife.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
10
22 June 2015
Mrs A Brett asked if the David Bellamy Award covered Muntjac Meadow. Mr
D Alston confirmed that it did, as well as some of the activities on the farm.
Mr L Wilcox asked what the applicants thought the RSPB meant in the first
paragraph of its letter, which was appended to the report, referring to events
likely to cause disturbance to the interest features of the SSSI.
Mr M Attew stated that the events would cause disturbance, but so would
many other activities, such as shoots. He stated that shoots took place
throughout the shooting season, with up to 10 guns, in comparison with a 20
minute firework display. He stated that gadwall numbers were higher than for
many years.
There being no more questions, the objectors were invited to put their case.
Mr G Stamp made the following points:








30 families lived within 1100m of the marquee, not including the
applicant’s family.
Last year a live music event on the meadow (not in the marquee) could be
heard inside his house with the windows closed. He regretted that he had
not complained, assuming it to be a one-off event and not something
planned on a regular basis.
Friday and Saturday night intrusion would be against his human rights.
Licensing objectives should apply to all crime and disorder.
The SSSI was a relevant consideration. It was against the law to disturb
wildlife and activities could cause displacement of birds, which if
permanent, would be detrimental to the SSSI and lead to criminal
degradation of the wildfowl reserve.
Wedding celebrations could involve a large amount of alcohol.
The proximity of a lake close to the site is an obvious temptation and
could have tragic consequences.
He urged the Sub-Committee to refuse this application.
Mr M Attew stated that there would not be harm to the SSSI.
Cllr B Jarvis asked to what extent Mr Stamp was not satisfied that the
applicants had addressed the concerns with regard to the lake in their
statement as to how they would address the licensing objectives.
Mr Stamp stated that the accepted there would be checks but he considered
that the applicants would not be able to control those who were drunk. He
was also unsure how noise from the marquee could be controlled.
Mr B Platts made the following points:






Noise from Deer’s Glade was already unacceptable.
Noise from children screaming and adults shouting is a mixture of school
playground and football ground.
The addition of alcohol would increase disturbance to near neighbours.
Alcohol dims awareness.
Amplified music and alcohol on Muntjac Meadow would cause additional
noise pollution, possibly with 20 hours of noise per day.
A neighbouring farmer’s wedding reception which had caused disturbance
and had led to prosecution.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
11
22 June 2015



The proximity of Great Water is a danger to children, particularly if parents
were inebriated.
Want to ensure the remaining peace and quiet is not disturbed further.
Perhaps applicants could work with the community, as required by the
David Bellamy award, by withdrawing the application.
Mr M Attew explained further regarding the neighbouring farmer’s wedding
reception and that it was the Council, not the Attew family, who had taken
them to Court.
Mr B Jarvis asked to what extent Mr Platts was not satisfied that the
applicants had addressed the concerns with regard to child safety and noise
issues. He stated that measures would be required to be put in place which
were not there at the moment.
Mr Stamp stated that he had based his concerns on what had happened in
the past. Complaints had been made via the Parish Council to try to quieten
the noise. However, noise continued unabated. He was not convinced the
applicants were responsible enough to keep the noise down.
Mr D Doak made the following points:
 Child safety was a very real issue. They tended to sneak away and things
which are attractive to them could be a real danger if they were not used
to them.
 Noise has been audible under the TENs. Absence of complaints should
not be taken as implicit endorsement. People were under the impression
it was a one-off and not a test for something more commercial.
 The number of objections from a fairly small population was a large
percentage.
 There was discrepancy in the number of events the applicants intended to
hold. What is the projected scale of the business in five years’ time? The
applicants were asking for a fairly unfettered licence.
 Conflict of interest between Muntjac Meadow and Deer’s Glade – one will
impose noise on the other.
 There will be a large number of additional people on site when events are
happening.
 Encroachment on the SSSI is important. Damage to an SSSI is a criminal
act.
 Enforcement regarding criminal offences falls within the remit of the
licensing objectives.
 The applicants had realised there is a planning issue to be addressed.
 Will the marquee be taken down after each event or left there?
 The licensing application should depend on a valid planning consent.
Planning is left in limbo.
 The original planning application for Deer’s Glade was rejected as it did
not conform to the Local Plan and a major factor was disturbance to the
SSSI.
 There is a clear intention to carry out intrusive activities.
 Disturbance to wildlife. It is not possible to make a clear decision with this
hanging in the balance.
 Application seems to be made in good faith; not making a planning
application appears to be an oversight which the applicants are
addressing.
 Neighbours only found out about this application by the notice going up –
neighbours should have been contacted.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
12
22 June 2015


24/7 application for alcohol and entertainment licence in a field, in a
sensitive area of North Norfolk, close to the Conservation Area and SSSI.
Application should be declined or at least deferred until planning issues
are sorted out.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Public Protection Manager
confirmed that the SSSI would be considered under a planning application. It
did not form part of the licensing application. If necessary, the Police could
take action under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The marquee could be on
site for up to 28 days without planning permission, which could be
consecutive or separate days, regardless of whether or not it was being used.
The Legal Advisor explained that this was an exception under the General
Permitted Development Order.
The Chairman considered that Parish Councils should be consulted on large
applications.
Mrs H Attew asked how far beyond the boundary of an SSSI could an activity
be deemed a disturbance. The Legal Advisor stated that this question should
be addressed to Natural England, or independent legal advice sought. Mrs
Attew confirmed that she would do so.
Mr L Wilcox made the following points:
 Referred to legislation and case law to demonstrate that the proposal
could have an impact on public and environmental amenity, resulting in
public nuisance.
 Harm to an animal can amount to a nuisance.
 RSPB is of the view that the proposal will disturb the SSSI. Great weight
should be given to its comments.
 The local authority should take reasonable steps to further the
conservation enhancement of the SSSI.
 The impact on Great Water is within the licensing objectives and the local
authority has a duty to have regard as to whether application will conserve
the site.
 No condition can be imposed which would avoid causing unacceptable
harm to a site of national importance.
 Concerns raised regarding trespass into the woods or lake.
 The site has a long boundary. The number of wardens which would be
required to ensure that no-one will trespass and put themselves or the
SSSI in danger should be addressed.
 He urged refusal of this application.
Mr M Attew stated that shoots took place around the SSSI on 15-20
occasions during the season and asked why this did not disturb the SSSI. He
did not wish to disturb the SSSI and the proposal was not an intrusion on
wildlife.
Mrs H Attew asked if the application could be refused on the basis of noise
created at the events venue when there were other noise-creating activities
affecting the SSSI on a regular basis and closer to the SSSI than the
meadow.
Mr Wilcox confirmed that it could, and referred to the expertise of the RSPB.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
13
22 June 2015
The Legal Advisor stated that she would address the relevance of this issue
in closed session.
The Public Protection Manager stated that the RSPB had recommended
restrictions on noise levels etc if the application were approved.
Mr Wilcox considered that the RSPB had offered an alternative if the
application were not refused. Refusal was its preference.
The Chairman was concerned that the Safeguarding Children’s Board had not
made any comment. The Legal Advisor advised that this was not relevant,
but the Chairman considered that it was.
Councillor R Shepherd asked the applicant if he was confident that the
requirements of the mandatory and additional conditions could be controlled
and policed. Mr D Attew confirmed that he was.
The parties were invited to make their closing statements.
Mr Wilcox spoke on behalf of all the objecting speakers:
 Everyone seemed to agree that the site was a pleasant, quiet, idyllic
countryside location and that it was attractive and should be preserved.
The application, if granted, would not preserve these factors.
 Muntjac Meadow was the more controversial element.
 He referred to Mr Platt’s comments regarding noise. The addition of
alcohol would exacerbate noise problems.
 There were numerous water features in the area which could be
dangerous to children. Alcohol would exacerbate the safety issues and
was sufficient reason alone to refuse the application.
 It was unlikely that wardens would notice children wandering out of the
marquee.
 30 families lived close to the site.
 Music was audible within homes with the windows closed.
 There was a lack of clarity over what the applicants were seeking in terms
of the number of events.
 Harm to the SSSI was a public nuisance and a matter for licensing; also
the RSPB said there would be an impact on creatures and the application
should be refused. The Council should take a precautionary approach.
 Conditions could not control noise adequately.
Mr Doak added that the applicants should consider the core values of their
business and tailor the application to them. He was concerned that there
would be a temptation to increase the activities once they had started.
Mrs Attew stated that the applicants fully appreciated that local residents did
not want the peaceful area to be ruined, but considered that there should be
some level of compromise between local residents and themselves. There
were benefits to the local area in terms of revenue and local business. The
applicants were happy to work with the licensing authority to take advice and
implement conditions which were imposed. The family had been upset by
some of the comments. The applicants supported the local community and
would do anything to minimise the impact on it. The number of children who
wandered off was minimal and they would be supervised by their parents.
The noise of people playing was acceptable for a holiday park. It was in the
family’s interests to police the noise levels to minimise the impact on local
Licensing & Appeals Committee
14
22 June 2015
residents and their own guests. They were happy to discuss issues face to
face with local people.
The Sub-Committee retired at 3.44 pm and returned at 4.22 pm.
The Chairman stated that with the weight of evidence and other issues, it was
not possible for the Sub-Committee to come to a decision immediately. The
decision would be made within the statutory five day notification period and
everybody would be notified of the decision.
The meeting closed at 4.23 pm.
NOTE:
Subsequent to the meeting, the application was approved.
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
15
22 June 2015