03
The Chair asked it to be noted that prior to the start of committee, the applicant circulated a further document, this was an email from Mr Barnard dated 12 February 2024 which had been sent to the licensing team.
The Sub-Committee received and considered the report from the Licensing Officer.
The Chair reported that the Sub-Committee was asked to consider an application for a variation of a Premises Licence for Cherry Tree Holiday Park, Mill Road, Burgh Castle, Great Yarmouth.
Mr Smith, applicant's solicitor, addressed the committee, noting that there had been pre-application discussions with Norfolk Constabulary and the licensing team. He confirmed the extent of the application and clarified that there would be no boxing taking place, just wrestling on the premises. He noted that the Police had not made a representation. He noted that the business had not been subject to any licensing reviews and had not received any enforcement notices regarding any activities which had taken place. The application was submitted to licence an outdoor area and tidy up conditions. External activities were not sought to the same hours as those relating to licensable activities within the complex indoors. Wrestling was “family wrestling”, staged and more in the nature of a play fight. He confirmed that “no boxing” was offered as a condition. He also confirmed that the watching of wrestling entertainment was only by those persons with a valid entertainment pass or an owner’s complex pass, which was also offered as a condition.
Mr Smith noted that the business had already shown films outside, utilising temporary event notices (TEN). These had taken place up to midnight, on approximately forty days in the last couple of years. This had taken place in the same outdoor area that it was now sought to licence.
Mr Smith mentioned the deregulation provisions regarding live music and licensed premises, allowing this licensable activity to 23:00 without permission needed. There was an advantage in providing activities under the premises licence as the licence was always open to review.
Mr Smith noted that the Council's environmental protection team had not objected to the application, indicating there had not been any complaints from residents to them.
It was intended for external alcohol sales to cease at 22:30.
Mr Smith addressed the representations. There was no intended extension to hours, just to the location of activities. There had been no complaints received regarding activities taking place within the entertainment complex. The business could already sell alcohol to 02:00, there would be no change to the lighting levels. Films had been shown outside with no complaints received. There was a concern regarding additional traffic, but the only persons attending events were those already staying at the park. This was a family-friendly business and he emphasised that the business had not received any complaints about the playing of loud music. He referred to the email from Mr Barnard where he mentioned that “we do not currently suffer any inconvenience or nuisance as a result of there activities”. Film shows were only advertised within the park itself.
A Councillor queried the persons allowed onto the park, and the applicant noted that to access the entertainment complex a person needed to show a complex pass which was only available to purchase by those staying there.
In regard to the proposed amendment to conditions, Mr Smith suggested that the door supervisor requirement was too prescriptive. There had been consultation with the police and no concerns had been raised. Several matters were more properly dealt with via the fire risk assessment and Mr Smith flagged the guidance stating these controls should not be duplicated under the premises licence.
Mr Smith informed the Committee that Tap water would continue to be provided without charge, and the business would continue to operate the Challenge 25 proof of age scheme.
In response to a query from a Councillor, the applicant confirmed that in respect of the outdoor area, the times of entertainment would be 10:00 to 23:00, and for alcohol sales 10:00 to 22:30. The business had not received any complaints relating to noise from persons drinking. There was no intention to vary internal alcohol sales.
Cllr Swan, Chairman of Burgh Castle Parish Council, addressed committee. The Parish Council was concerned about noise from the outside area late at night and had been concerned about attendance from non-residents. He requested consideration of a decibel limit restriction. There were no questions to Cllr Swan from the applicant.
Ms Griffiths via Ms Hollis, addressed committee, noting the risk of more frequent activities at the premises with potential noise pollution and possible antisocial behaviour from customers watching wrestling matches. They lived close to the park and were direct neighbours. She was concerned about noisy events happening more often and was keen for activities to continue via TEN’s instead of by a varied premises licence. There were no questions to Ms Griffiths from the applicant.
Mr Barnard addressed committee. He informed the committee that he had moved in to his property a couple of years ago and had not been inconvenienced by any activity carried out internally at the park. He had not been inconvenienced or distressed by the outdoor activities which had taken place under a TEN. Whilst he expected events to be well managed, he was worried about the risk of recorded music being played every day and wondered whether the period of licensable activities could be reduced from all days to less than 365 days a year and whether mitigation could be introduced to deal with possible noise levels. He confirmed the business was currently doing a good job.
There were no questions to Mr Barnard from the applicant.
The Chair checked that all present had no further questions to ask of any of the parties.
Mr Smith then addressed the committee to give his closing comments, noting that there had been forty or so screenings of films which had not caused any disturbance, that the business would be prepared to accept a limit on noise and reminded committee of relevant case law findings that a variation meant that committee’s discretion was limited to the matters contained in the variation and that these were not review proceedings.
It was agreed that the following conditions were offered as part of the operating schedule:-
1. No boxing entertainment will take place on the premises.
2. The watching of wrestling is restricted to those persons who have a valid entertainment pass or owner’s complex pass.
3. The exhibition of films outdoors is limited to occasions between 1 May and 31 October in any calendar year, together with any Bank Holiday Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday together with the day preceding a bank holiday; and
4. There will be no karaoke outdoors.
At 15:06, the Committee retired to consider their decision in private.
At 15:23, the Committee reconvened to hear the Committee decision in public.
The decision of committee is as follows:-
The variation application, as amended, was approved. Committee did not impose any additional conditions, following confirmation from the applicant that wrestling was indoors only.
The reasons for the committee decision is as follows:-
The committee noted and gave weight to the lack of any representation from the Norfolk Constabulary, noting that the police were a prime source of advice regarding the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective.
The committee noted and gave weight to the lack of any representation from those at the council dealing with environmental health issues, relevant to noise concerns and the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. There is a written representation from a local resident, Mr Glen Miller, stating that in the last year outdoor and live music had been played at a high decibel level keeping his household awake on several occasions. It is not known whether a complaint was made to environmental health, but the outdoor music is limited to 23:00. Mr Miller did not attend committee and thus could not be questioned on his representation.
There were concerns in the written representations regarding extension of music hours to 2am and potential noise nuisance. The outdoor hours are limited to 23:00 but committee accepts that there is a real concern as to what may occur in the future. However, committee felt that there was insufficient evidence before committee to justify a refusal or reduction in the variation sought, noting again the lack of representations from the environmental health team.
After hearing from the applicant and noting the comments of residents, it appeared to committee that the premises had a satisfactory management with no concerns from those present over the way the premises have been currently run. Events had taken place outdoors under TEN’s on many occasions over the previous two years which had not resulted in nuisance complaints to the business.
Concerns as to light nuisance were also mentioned, but the applicant had noted that light levels would not change.
There are concerns regarding increased noise from traffic and increased anti-social behaviour arising from the variation, but committee accepts the comments made by the applicant regarding control of access, notes that the hours for the sale of alcohol are not increased and that the consumption of alcohol is not a licensable activity. The behaviour of persons when beyond the control of the premises licence holder is a matter of personal responsibility.
On balance there appeared to be insufficient justification to impose additional noise controls, though should noise nuisance arise the premises licence can be reviewed and of course there are other controls available under separate legislation.
The Solicitor informed the committee of the right to the variation appeal under schedule 5 of the Licensing Act.
RESOLVED:-
The variation application, as amended at Committee, was approved.