03
The Sub-Committee received and considered the report from the Licensing Officer.
The Licensing Officer reported that the sub-committee is asked to consider an application made by Vauxhall Holiday Park Ltd for a variation of the premises licence of Vauxhall Holiday Park, Acle New Road, Great Yarmouth, NR30 1TB.
The Variation is as follows:-
To add plays, indoors, Monday to Sunday, 24 hours and outdoors, Monday to Sunday, 08.00 to 23.00,
To extend Live, Recorded Music, Performance of Dance and Entertainment of a similar description, outdoors, 08.00 to 23.00 (indoors to remain as existing),
To remove conditions no longer relevant and covered under separate legislation,
Update relevant conditions in line with current licensing legislation; and
Approve changes to the layout plans to include the addition of new licensed outdoor areas within the holiday park, such plans to have effect upon the completion of works as notified to the Licensing Authority in writing.
The Licensing Officer informed the sub-committee that upon expiry of the 28-day representation period, eight valid representations were received in objection to the application. Seven of the representations were from local residents, including a petition, and one was from Whitbread Group Plc. Following a meeting at the holiday park, one of the local residents had withdrawn their objection.
The Licensing Officer reported that Whitbread Group Plc were unable to attend the sub-committee today but have requested that the committee consider their written representation which is detailed on pages 44 - 46 of the agenda report. If the committee were minded to approve the application, they have asked that the committee include their submitted list of conditions to the grant of the licence.
The Licensing Officer reported that Mr Roberts, who had made a representation was also unable to attend the meeting but his concerns remained regarding the proposed times which he wished reduced.
The Solicitor asked whether Mr Smith would like to address the claim made by Whitbread Group Ltd that the plans submitted failed to include information which was required under The Licensing Act 2003 . The plans failed to detail the location of fire extinguishers and any other safety equipment. As the application was not compliant with the regulations, the consultation period for the application should restart, once a complaint plan had been submitted.
Mr Smith reported that he had been made aware of the anomaly and the submitted plan did not have the required fire symbols marked on it. This matter was a minor discrepancy which he understood had been dealt with via email with the Council's Environmental Health department and therefore, the application was procedable and the updated plans would be submitted next week.
The Solicitor reported that he would support the approach proposed by Mr Smith as he felt that it would be disproportionate if the committee deferred this application due to this issue as he felt that it did not cause prejudice to either party.
Councillor Jeal asked for an assurance that there would be no alterations to the fire points or signage and they would remain exactly where they were sited now. Mr Smith reported that some of the fire points would need to be moved as the shop had been re-sited.
Councillor Jeal reported that he had worked at the local Fire Service for 30 years and asked whether the Fire Service had objected to the application. The Licensing Officer advised that the Fire Service had submitted their standard response to the application.
The Chair reported that he was happy to proceed with the application and following a vote, the committee voted unanimously to continue as they were satisfied with the response given by Mr Smith.
Mr Smith addressed the committee and reported the salient areas of the application in great detail. The applicant was part of a group owning 66 caravan parks and this application related to part of a £5m redevelopment seeking to ensure the park remained relevant to the current market. The scope of the application and the proposed events were described, with the applicant noting that the changes proposed to conditions was to ensure that those already covered by other legislation or no longer required were removed. The applicant noted that no responsible authority had made representation with concerns concerning the proposed amendment of conditions. The Council’s policy indicated that conditions should not duplicate those controls already existing under other legislation. He viewed the email and proposed conditions from Whitbread Group PLC as mischief-making, noting for example, that the applicant would risk assess the need for plastic glasses for the consumption of alcohol and the police had raised no concerns on the use of glassware. The applicant had improved the strength of controls regarding children and young people and Challenge 25.
Mr Smith informed the committee that the resident objectors had been invited to attend a meeting at the Park on the 8 April 2026. Whitbread Group PLC did not attend the meeting and tried to delay it taking place.
The applicantion referred to plan 8764 FO1 rev C where the applicant had removed two areas from those originally sought to be licensed, the MUGA and the outdoor seating area/beer garden. The internal changes and external changes to the premises were outlined to committee.
The applicant discussed the currently authorised matters under the licence, those activities already permitted by law under for example the Live Music Act 2012 and reiterated that this application was a variation and not a review.
The stage was noted as 3 metres by 5 metres, relevant to the likely size of event entertainment, which would be a small band. The applicant noted that external entertainments had been provided such as "Weekender" events, of which nine were planned for this year. These were held under the Live Music Act 2012 and involved amplified music.
The applicant described the efforts made to control noise and assist the nearby residents, noting that the stage had been turned around so that the back of the stage was towards the residents, the speakers were re-positioned and that a noise limiter was fitted. The Weekender events had been taking place for 22 years and the last complaint to the Council's Environmental Health team regarding noise was believed to have been in 2019. The applicant was happy to agree to implement and maintain a noise management plan.
The outdoor bar area would have last orders at 22:00 but would not be closed at 22:00.
The applicant discussed the noise report and the setting of the level of the noise limiter, the background level of noise had been measured at relevant points and the level set to ensure that additional noise did not cause a nuisance, identified as an increase of plus 5 dBA. The level had been set to 87dBA, falling to 84 dBA after 7pm. The applicant confirmed that they would investigate any noise complaints and were happy for the Environmental Health team to check the setting of the level of the noise limiter.
The applicant noted that any imposed condition should be appropriate, proportionate and should relate to the application being considered by the sub-committee. Mr Smith did not believe the proposed additional conditions from Whitbread Group PLC satisfied these tests. The “purple guide” was useful in respect of festivals and large-scale music events but not relevant today as the applicant’s events were on a much smaller scale. The applicant already checked the fitness of their door staff, a SAG group was not relevant to the application, Norfolk County Council regarding child protection had not made any suggestions for additional conditions, in-house training of staff already took place and none of the expert responsible authorities had sought any of the conditions suggested by Whitbread Group PLC.
The applicant had used Temporary Event Notices to hold events in the premises outdoor area, and asked committee to note that at a later meeting with residents on the 8 April 2026 there had been no mention by the residents of problems arising during these periods. Following that meeting a further five days of events under a TEN were held without any calls being made about noise concerns.
In regard to the cumulative impact, the applicant noted that there was only one stage area and that the premises was not subject to a cumulative impact policy. In response to a clarification request from the Chair, the applicant confirmed that the TEN events had been five days on three occasions, with times of 08:00 to 23:00.
In response to questions from Councillors Newcombe & Robinson-Payne, the applicant confirmed that live bands did not play continuously, that the premises used Challenge 25 and had never failed this test so far as anyone was aware, that the noise complaint from 2019 was believed to be from a resident and that the applicant would seek to mitigate unreasonably noisy behaviour from guests who if necessary could be removed from the premises and their holidays cancelled.
Mr Nash, objector, questioned the applicant and noted that the residents when they visited the premises had not heard the speakers in operation. The applicant noted that the General Manager had offered his email address to residents, seeking to turn the music on and then visit the residents at their properties to see if the noise could be heard in their homes.
Mr McDermott, objector, wished to question the noise limits, the applicant noted that the measurements were taken 10 metres from the front of stage in accordance with guidance.
The applicant noted that the premises had introduced a sound compressor, which did not turn the music off but reduced the sound being produced. The noise was still able to be controlled and reduced in volume.
Mr Nash addressed the sub-committee and informed them that he had lived at his current address for nearly two years and had lived in the town all his life and was concerned about the playing of outdoor music. At a meeting with the applicant, 90 dBA had been suggested which he said would be very loud and capable of being heard 1 km away. He was concerned about the number of late reports he had received in respect of the application. He was concerned about the effect on his 10 year old daughter and her sleep being disturbed. He had not complained either to the Council or to Parkdean Resorts. In September 2025, he had heard six hours of soul music in his property, and was unable to sit out and enjoy his balcony as the speakers had been facing in the wrong direction. His concern was the applicant might do in the future, for example if speakers were turned around that would have an effect on his health or if the premises were sold as he had previously needed to move house due to a noisy neighbour.
There were no questions to Mr Nash from the applicant.
Mr McDermott, objector, addressed committee. He had lived opposite the site for 28 years, and over the years the problem was not the music but the thump of the base drum as loud background noise. He had not objected to the Weekenders, these were expected and were not a problem for him, but general and frequent noise outdoors from 8 to 11pm was a disturbing prospect with sleep likely to be disturbed and stress caused. The effect of the application, if granted, would in his view be persistent public noise nuisance which could also affect holidaymakers on boats moored nearby. In response to a question from a councillor Mr McDermott confirmed that he had not complained about the premises.
There were no questions to Mr McDermott from the applicant.
Ms Cooper, objector, addressed the sub-committee as she was concerned about the proposed timings. She had not lived in her flat for very long, nearly two years, but a recent soul weekend had been a nightmare experience as the speakers had been the wrong way round resulting in music blaring across the river into her home long into the night. She worked at the hospital, had a 10 year old daughter and was employed on long, gruelling 12 hour shifts. It was important for her to have adequate sleep, and she was concerned if things got out of hand in the future. She believed that events finishing at 23:00 was excessive and noted that there was likely to be disturbance from drunks afterwards. In response to a question from Councillor Robinson-Payne, she confirmed that she had not raised any complaints with Parkdean. There had been no more problems since the Soul event.
The applicant did not have any questions for Ms Cooper.
Closing statements from those who wished to make them were heard by the sub-committee. Mr Nash reported that he had nothing personal against the holiday park which provided much needed local employment, but this should not be to the detriment of residents, and the varied hours could massively impact neighbours. Mr McDermott noted that it was a case of “suck it and see” but he was adamant that events to 23:00 was excessive and he was worried that he may need to phone the Environmental Health team on a regular basis.
Mr Smith, on behalf of the applicant, noted the existing 24-hour permissions and that they were not used to that extent, that comments regarding the noise being heard a kilometre away were not correct with the noise limiter being set following measurements and that a noise management plan would be followed. Music was not going to be played continuously during the requested hours; tourism would be promoted if the variation went ahead and the business had introduced a proportionate response to concerns and to ensure there was no public nuisance.
Mr Smith concluded that outdoor entertainments were popular, especially since Covid and this was a small stage and not a large concert area. There were no police concerns, in fact the police had complemented the premises on a reduction in incidents, there were no concerns raised by the Environmental Health team. The last known complaint was approximately seven years ago and significant work had been undertaken to control noise regarding, for example, the placing of speakers and the introduction of a noise limiter. The Council was reminded that any decision needed to be evidence based, proportionate and appropriate to the application.
At 12:15, the sub-committee went into recess, to allow them to deliberate in private. Those present, who were not part of the sub-committee were asked to leave the Council Chamber.
At 12:44, the sub-committee re-convened and those who had been excluded were invited back into the Council Chamber to hear the decision of the committee in public.
The Solicitor, nplaw, read out the decision of the sub-committee.
The Solicitor, nplaw, reported the following reasons for the sub-committee decision as follows:-
There are no concerns raised regarding this variation from the Environmental Health Team or Norfolk Constabulary. The sub-committee gives significant weight to their views, especially when considering the promotion of the prevention of public nuisance and prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.
The sub-committee noted the size of the small stage area and that the applicant has researched the question of noise and has provided a noise management plan containing proposals to control the noise to an acceptable level, which they agree to implement and maintain.
The Park appears to be a well-run premises with very few noise complaints made, indeed the last complaint regarding noise was said to be seven years ago. Since that occasion changes have been made with the introduction of a noise limiter on site with care given to the placing of speakers. Whilst residents are concerned regarding what may take place with extended hours there is no evidence-based reason currently to believe that noise nuisance is going to be caused by this variation.
Whitbread Group PLC have suggested a significant number of conditions which in the view of the Council have not been shown to be appropriate to the promotion of the Licensing objectives. The sub-committee notes the limited scope of the variation and the controls existing under the noise management plan. Many proposed conditions seem more designed for large scale events where there is a concern as to the competence of management and the risk of avoidance of controls. It appears to the sub-committee that small scale events will take place under this variation which do not warrant, for example, the involvement of a Safety Advisory Group or the presentation in advance to that group of an Event Management Plan containing the matters set out in proposed condition 17. Many matters mentioned in the proposed conditions such as the existence of a noise limiter and the existence of a written noise management plan are already in place. Whilst the existing controls are not as prescriptive in respect of events as those proposed by Whitbread Group PLC, the sub- committee does not believe that it is appropriate to impose any of those specified for the promotion of the licensing objectives, on the evidence before the committee and noting the confidence of committee in the management of these premises.
The Solicitor, nplaw, informed the sub-committee that the Rights of Appeal were set out in Schedule 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. Any appeal must be received by a Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision appealed against.
RESOLVED:-
That the application be granted, as modified, at the meeting.
The application be approved in respect of those parts that the applicant wished to proceed with, those parts of the original variation application that the applicant did not wish to proceed with involving the multi-use games area and the outdoor seating area/beer garden, as shown on plan 8764 FO1 rev C, be refused.
It is noted that the operating schedule will include the following offered conditions:-
(i) That the premises licence holder will implement and maintain the obligations contained in the noise management plan,
(ii) That a copy of the noise management plan will be provided to the licensing authority and a copy will also be kept on the premises; and
(iii) That the Environmental Health team of Great Yarmouth Borough Council will review the dBA settings on the noise limiter at the premises.
The Licensing Team have authority to make necessary wording changes to the plan.