5
The Chair welcomed everyone for attending. He invited a lead speaker from the objectors and David Blackmore, Chair of Huntingfield Parish Council said he would act in that capacity. The Chair pointed out that anyone registered would have the opportunity to speak if they wished but it would be useful if they could avoid just repeating the objections. The Chair reminded attendees that this was a Licensing Committee and therefore comments must be restricted to issues of licensing only and not planning issues. Only licensing issues could be considered when making their decision.
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2231 of the Licensing Officer which related to a new premises licence for Blyth Barn, Wilderness Reserve Suffolk, Blyth Barn Laundry Lane, Huntingfield, Halesworth, Suffolk, IP19 0PY.
The Chair invited the Senior Licensing Officer to summarise the report. She told the Sub-Committee that the applicant, Wilderness Reserve Suffolk Ltd, had submitted an application for a new premises licence to permit live and recorded music, late night refreshment and supply of alcohol on and off the premises.
Live Music
Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 01:00
Recorded Music
Monday to Sunday 08:00 to 01:00
Late night refreshment
Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00
Supply of Alcohol
On and Off the premises Monday to Sunday 00:00 to 00:00
The hearing was being held because representations against the application had been received from local residents. It was pointed out that there was an error in the report which stated there were only eight representations. It was explained that any objections just relating to traffic were not included as they were not related to the Licensing objective. There were no objections from the Responsible Authorities. The Sub-Committee was advised that the Applicant had been provided with copies of the representations.
The Sub-Committee was informed that when taking its decision, it was required to consider the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s current Statement of Licensing Policy and the Human Rights Act 1998, giving full reasons should it have reason to depart from these points. The Sub-Committee was asked to determine the application by:
• Granting the application subject to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application and any condition which must be included in the licence in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003.
• Granting the application subject to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives (for example, by excluding a licensable activity or restricting the hours when a licensable activity can take place), and any condition which must be included in the licence in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003.
• Rejecting the application.
The Chair invited questions from the Sub-Committee to the Senior Licensing Officer. The Chair asked for clarity that all the Responsible Authorities had been contacted and if they had replied to say they had no comment. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that no representations have been received. Some say no comment and some don’t reply at all which was usual. She explained that they only expected a response if the Authority had objections.
The Chair invited the Applicant’s Counsel and those assisting him to ask questions of the Senior Licensing Officer. There were none.
The Chair invited those making representations to ask questions of the Senior Licensing Officer. David Blackmore asked how many representations had been made.
The Senior Licensing Officer stated that 26 relevant representations were received.
The Chair invited the Legal Adviser to ask any questions of the Licensing Officer but there were none.
The Chair invited the Applicant’s Counsel to present their case including calling any witnesses.
The Applicant’s Counsel thanked people for their representations and gave a brief introduction to the process. He explained the Applicant was a known operator. The application was for an area called the Blyth Barn that sat within the wider Wilderness Reserve. Maps provided showed what was currently being constructed. This application covered an 18-bedroom Barn, an 8-bedroom manor and another cottage together with open air areas. He pointed out a unique feature of the site, that there was no public access, meaning you could not walk in off the street and get a pint or a meal. Everything had to be pre-booked and some events were planned two years in advance.
There was a discussion regarding page numbers; those pertaining to the report and those for the document pack for the whole meeting. The small number related to the page numbers on the application form.
As shown on page 4 of the application, the Blyth Barn would be used for corporate hires, events, cinemas, workshops, weddings etc and although the licensing hours may look alarming on paper it was due to the site operating much like a deconstructed hotel and not having set opening hours. He explained that live and recorded music was deregulated by law until 11pm for up to 499 people but after 11pm you needed the authorisation. He explained that the application came with an operating schedule with conditions and there would be restrictions on the sale and supply of alcohol and it would only be in specific places.
He continued to explain that the name of the applicant was key to the application. Traditional uses of the countryside were no longer sustainable. The Wilderness Reserve offering brought people into the countryside for leisure purposes; contained hamlets within nature where natural elements were at the forefront of planning and decision making. It was a wilderness reserve and high-end resort, not a theme park, with no ground lights on the paths or walkways that would encourage visitors towards the village or specifically the Millennium Green Park. If you were spending this much money to stay you wanted the darkness and peace of the wilderness.
He stated that the company was engaged with the local residents and they had contributed to the local community. He cited examples of the zip wire at the Millennium Green and the burying of overhead cables which the Wilderness Reserve would be undertaking. He pointed out that they wanted the site to be well run and to promote nature, sustainability and the rural economy. He stated that 80% of the workforce came from the local area.
He continued with a reflection on relevant representations and that the Sub-Committee needed to abide by section 18.6a of the Licensing Act and assess the effect of an application on the likely effects of the granting of the licence on the Licensing Objectives. He pointed out that East Suffolk’s Statement of Licensing Policy mentioned this three times. By law the Sub-Committee must regard the section 182 guidance and Members would need very good evidence to stray from this. He stressed the importance of the statutory experts and how they were experts in their own areas.
He pointed out that no objections had been raised by the statutory consultees and that was very important. The only assumption Members could make is that they had no objections. He reminded Members that they could not substitute their own assumptions as a Councillor and referenced the Thwaites case and impermissible evidence.
He explained that although there would be passionate and genuine fears, fears were not good evidence and could not be a substitute for the statutory experts. He explained there was good evidence in the form of the independent acoustician and the experience of Chapel Barn, another hamlet within the Wilderness Reserve. This was granted a premises licence in 2018 under similar terms. He said there had been no interventions or any engagement that would suggest any fears about the operations and this explained the lack of representations from the statutory consultees.
He moved on to what was considered relevant. The Statement of Licensing policy explained the constraints and how some considerations related to planning were therefore not relevant to a licensing hearing.
He continued with a description of the hotel and the type of celebrations and events that would take place at Blyth Barn. He said the largest wedding across the site was 120 people. He explained they were bespoke, top end events and last year there were 25, 3-day events and the average stay was only 3 days. The events usually took place at weekends. They were looking at having 28 events in 2025. He said there would be a limited impact and although the acoustic report raised potential concerns about dispersal and people leaving this was a different type of venue. It wasn’t a pub but guests would return to their rooms on site for which they had paid a premium. In terms of impact people would normally arrive mid-morning and leave mid-morning on the subsequent day. It certainly would not have the traditional impacts or dispersal issues that some people may imagine.
With regards to Public Safety he referenced traffic and paragraph 2.8 of the Licensing Regime which related to the safety of people using the premises. Paragraph 14.31 referred to safety of those working or visiting the premises. He stressed it related to the safety of people on the premises, not a broad umbrella about what happened down the lane or in surrounding areas. He explained that was why traffic and road management objections were not relevant considerations. However, he pointed out that last week East Suffolk granted permission for a bridge across a lake so the company can build a road to enable access without travelling through the neighbouring village. He apologised to residents about the range of applications, but explained the operation of a premises like this was like a finely wrought mosaic where every tesserae had to be put in place.
He referenced the concerns relating to the Millennium Green. He explained that you cannot dictate how people access premises but you could think about how you kept people on site. The company would rather guests stayed on site and spent their money there. He pointed out that the times on the application would mean there was more on offer onsite than in the surrounding local area.
He listed the facilities on site including a gym, four treatment rooms, spa and plunge pools and hot tubs. He explained that it was designed to keep people on the premises and with a fridge that was kept stocked up there was no real reason for guests to travel to the village. He explained that licensing was not the primary mechanism for controlling antisocial behaviour.
He moved on to the licensing objective of Crime and Disorder and referenced paragraph 9.12 of the section 182 guidance. He stressed that no experts, the responsible authorities, had made any representations and no-one had questioned the operating schedule and conditions they had proposed. He was happy to answer questions about staffing levels, management, dispersal, noise, light pollution, air pollution, environmental impact etc later on.
He explained that regarding the licensing objective of Protecting Children from Harm it was about protection on the site and immediate vicinity. The team of Rangers across the Wilderness Reserve had all gone through enhanced DBS checks and safeguarding and first aid training. He stated that school visits had taken place on site. He pointed out that families were responsible for their own children on site but that they worked with Box of Frogs who provided children’s entertainment and childcare.
He referred to the Operating Schedule which could be found on pages 24 and 25 of the document pack. This was based on the schedule used for Chapel Barn. He highlighted the management structure and that staff were on the Wilderness Reserve site 24 hours a day and said he would any questions on this later. CCTV would be in operation and all the necessary Health & Safety, evacuation and first responder procedures etc were in place.
The Applicant’s Counsel pointed out that they had suggested some conditions through the acoustic report. The noise management plan stated that doors and windows would be closed after 11pm. The music levels would be kept low and controlled (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.6) and listed all the relevant elements (paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2). He explained that there were features of the operating schedule that went wider than licensing considerations, such as deliveries and transportation and where people would smoke. He mentioned he had witnessed the noise associated with the village hall bottling out at 4.30pm.
With regards to the procedures for managing dispersal he would ask Mr Rogers to explain this specifically. The approach they had taken was a worst-case scenario. The noise management plan would sit within the Operation Plan for Blyth Barn and the wider site. Noise sensitive receptors had been mapped out in the village, which was slightly misleading as the nearest noise receptor to Blyth Barn was Blyth Manor and the cottage. He pointed out that the company wouldn’t want to disturb guests staying on the site who had paid substantial amounts of money. He explained that the site would operate to ensure the wider amenity of the whole operation. Not everyone would want to party until 1am or later and he pointed out that the owner’s home was in the heart of the Wilderness Reserve. The company cared about their bottom line and they wanted their guests to have a good night’s sleep.
The Applicant’s Counsel then referred to the plans in Appendix B on p73 of the document pack. He talked about the basement and the circle was the stairs. He explained that the restored barn would be soundproofed. You accessed the basement entertainment area by the circular staircase. He pointed out that the bar was dwarfed by the entertainment space, commercial kitchen and the spa facilities, which showed where the priorities lay. He stated that it could not be turned into a massive nightclub. He explained that there was a Zone Array structure above the dancefloor which contained the noise in a specific area. The venue could seat 288 but the average model was 120. Double doors looked out on the sunken swimming pool. All noisy activities were sunken and contained in an acoustically designed venue, with surrounding planting so there was effectively a triple seal. He pointed out that the 18 bedrooms were located around the entertainment area with guests who might be in bed early.
He explained that due to a quirk in the law he was unable to present new material to the Sub-Committee Members, but he shared a CGI generated image of the site, which explained the triple lock, with members of the public. He explained that the red line showed the licensable area, which did not just cover the points of sale such as the bar, but a much larger area. Consumption of food and alcohol was not a licensable activity but by creating this expanded licensable area, if they reneged on their promises, such as hosting late night bonfire parties to 4am, they would be held accountable. The company could have just contained the licensed area to the barn and therefore any noise that occurred outside of the area would not be covered by the premises licence.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that the internal and external music levels would be controlled by limiting devices with pre-set limits. This was detailed in paragraph 6.1 of the acoustic report. East Suffolk’s Environmental Protection Officers would be invited to view the set up if the licence was granted. Management of noisy people was part of the noise management plan and included low-level lighting, making interiors attractive, closing doors and windows and car parking. However, because of the onsite offering they assumed people wouldn’t drive until they leave at the end of their stay. External activities with Rangers would be finished by 7/8/9pm. He explained that plant noise was a planning matter and the noise management plan would be submitted and made publicly available.
He invited Peter Rogers from Sustainable Acoustics to give further detail on five specific elements.
Peter Rogers explained that as an independent expert he took the worst-case scenario and assessed the impact on residents. He worked through all the noise sources that were likely to occur including amplified music, guests, car park and plant and put this through a computer model with a downwind so assuming the worst scenario. He measured sound levels at the site during the day and night and measured against criteria for impact and set the acceptable impact to low. This was a planning threshold that protected the quality of life in the area. He looked at different scenarios with and without mitigation for each of the noise sources. The maps show the results.
The results from the car parking scenario, which was the area closest to residents, flagged that it needed mitigation in case people did use their cars whilst staying. A lot of the mitigations have been built into the design of the buildings.
He explained that there would be a distributed sound system integrated inside the walls rather than individual speakers. The Zone Array acoustic canopy would stop music travelling into the community. He was satisfied with the music level scenarios before and after 11pm. The doors could be closed from 11pm or if the doors were opened after this time the system would automatically lower the sound level. The only way guests could increase the volume would be by closing the doors.
He assured Members that the licensing objective of proactively preventing public nuisance had been taken to the absolute extent of what could happen, and all the scenarios had been captured in the noise report, which would normally be considered part of planning. From his independent position he made several recommendations that the Sub-Committee could choose to apply. He stated that all they had to do was ask the company to follow the noise management plan and as a result he was satisfied that the impact on the community would be low.
He explained that external usage had been assessed robustly. They had assumed the number of people outside based on the numbers that could fit into the area and they had also assessed the impact of cars.
The Applicant’s Counsel asked Peter to clarify the impact on deregulated music in the outside space. Peter pointed out that there were some speakers in the outside area, such as the pool area. However, guests would not be able to bring in their own sound systems but could only connect to the existing set up. They looked at three locations where a marquee could be located and that was included in the modelling. This would ensure levels were kept low as the sound system volume would be limited and the impact would be acceptable. The Applicant’s Counsel explained that Peter used an assumption of 270 people attending an event, so people travelling across the Wilderness Reserve site to and from Blyth Barn were also considered.
Peter explained that he was involved with the build, planning and the future operation of the site and he would oversee the setting up of the limiting devices and control mechanisms against the levels set out in his report. At the request of the Applicant’s Counsel, he explained the concept of low adverse impact, which in planning terms was identifying that there was some acceptance that you hear some sound, but it wouldn’t impact your quality of life. During the daytime was different to the night. In downwind conditions you would be aware of something going on but wouldn’t have to take action to mitigate the noise and could keep windows open at night.
The Applicant’s Counsel concluded that this application had been risk assessed, it was based on experience and from a legal perspective the complaints didn’t meet the evidential threshold. The fears can be met by the conditions and the operating schedule. He commended the application and stressed that the Applicant would meet the licensing requirements and would provide a community benefit for many years to come.
The Chair reminded objectors what the Sub-Committee based their decision on and that emotive concerns were not necessarily the criteria that the Committee considered. He stressed it was not pre-determined. He said they needed to establish if the residents wanted no noise at all or did they recognise that there would be some noise but it would not go above set levels.
He then invited questions from Members to the Applicant.
Councillor Folley thanked the Counsel for his comprehensive outline. She asked if there was a strategic plan for Security Industry Authority (SIA) trained staff.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that Security operated on a number of levels. As well as the Rangers, every event had an event manager assisted by 1-3 event co-ordinators and then the remaining staff on rota (120-160) on site. They were supported by the on-site Security Adviser who was SIA registered and had worked with the company for 3 years and had over 20 years’ experience. The Security Adviser would call in additional staff as and when needed. He reiterated that security and safeguarding considerations ran through the operation and that each hamlet had a dedicated member of staff working mostly full time. He pointed out that Chapel Barn had not had to call the police or had any issues. The only incidents that had occurred was someone making a complaint of domestic violence, a hoax call to the police and an ambulance attended someone who was dehydrated after too much time in the sauna. It wasn’t felt there was a need for SIA registered doormen. He explained there was night security in place, but it hadn’t been needed as a condition for Chapel Barn nor has experience flagged that there was a need.
Councillor Hedgley asked about the prevention of public nuisance and believed that some objectors may have a mental picture of a celebration getting out of control. He asked if the stewards were really well trained and would they treat bad behaviour the same, no matter who it was. He also mentioned the bowl effect, referencing Ephesus, and asked if the operator would definitely have control over the noise.
The Applicant’s Counsel referenced the magistrates court case, where they litigated the idea that if rich people got drunk their antisocial behaviour was less offensive. He did not agree with this and stated that the stewards would treat everyone the same. This had already been demonstrated with Chapel Barn and there was very good team co-ordination. He pointed out that there was a clause within the terms and conditions that stated hirers could not have the noise level they wanted. He explained it was not in the company’s long-term interests. He also reminded the Committee that the company could be brought back for a review of the licence if they breached the conditions.
Peter Rogers directed Members to the end of the noise report where there were a number of forms including noise logs and complaints forms. There was a Service Level Agreement with entertainers and customers, and they must sign up to the noise management plan. He explained that if you were inside the bowl you would get good sound. However, if you were beyond the outside of the bowl, eg in the village, you are surrounded by buildings and walls which stops the sound. For his assessment he had assumed the wind was blowing towards the village. So sound impact had been considered and it would be controlled within the bowl, plus the sides would be grassed to absorb the sound.
Councillor Hedgley asked what would happen if they were called by the Chair of the Parish Council complaining that the noise was too loud.
Peter Rogers said they would look to the premises to prove that they had implemented the noise management plan. They would produce the Service Legal Agreement, logs and the complaints form. The sound limiter would be sealed and could not be tampered with. He stressed that quality came down to people and if there was poor practice or management it would come back to Licensing for review.
The Applicant’s Counsel reminded Members that you would hear some noise but not those above the permitted levels. Noise would have to meet the test of public nuisance under the Licensing Act so just because you could hear some noise wouldn’t make it a public nuisance or a breach of operations.
The Legal Adviser asked if planning permission had been granted yet. The Applicant’s Counsel said there were outstanding planning matters, but they were not relevant to this hearing.
The Chair pointed out that you normally have expert witnesses from both sides. Without questioning Peter Roger’s integrity, he asked if some elements were not included because the results would not be favourable or had his services been engaged by Huntingfield Parish Council would he have reached the same conclusions and recommendations in his report.
Peter Rogers emphasised that he was a registered expert witness his duty was to the Council and not his Client. He responded to the instructions he was given but those were about protecting the community. He explained that the limits imposed would put the community in a very positive position.
The Chair asked what percentage of people attending an event would be staying on site and what numbers were likely to be leaving at midnight/1am.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that the business plan encouraged people to stay within the Reserve and there were a number of properties that could be hired across the whole site. Guests would be shuttled around the site. He stated that overspill in the past year had happened very minimally and cited one occasion of 15 people who either lived locally or stayed locally. He explained that the package being sold was one of being all together and staying at other venues that weren’t theirs would be contrary to the business plan.
The Chair pressed for further detail, saying that circa 50% of people attending might be leaving after an event as a worst-case scenario. The Applicant’s Counsel said the majority would be in Blyth Barn but those leaving wouldn’t necessarily be anti-social. The Applicant’s Counsel stated it was important when looking at section 182 guidance that it would be a minority that caused issues. He reminded Members that they hadn’t had any incidents or needed to call the police.
Peter Rogers explained that the recommended screening by the car park would deal with the noise of people leaving the site, together with the management.
The Legal Adviser asked the Licensing Officers to confirm how long Chapel Barn had had a licence and if there had been any complaints since it was granted.
The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed it was granted on 21 October 2020 and there had been no complaints.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked about the Designated Premises Supervisor’s (DPS) qualifications and experience and what delegation would happen when they were not there or on other sites.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained he was the DPS at other sites but that he sat at the top of a pyramid as events operations person and there were four departments (Weddings, Corporate, Celebrities & VIP and Leisure) each with their own staff. He explained there was a structure in place for each hire and staffing varied depending on the scale of each event and gave a lengthy description of the organisational structure. The DPS met each week to work out what structure was needed for the following weeks.
The Senior Licensing Officer reiterated that she wanted to know how long the DPS had been working for the company, what their experience was and how did the delegation work.
The Applicant’s Counsel confirmed they had been the DPS for 18 months and they had worked in hospitality and management for over 10 years and held a personal licence. He explained there were also personal licence holders within the team and there was regular safeguarding training.
The Chair asked if there was any evidence of drug use or misuse. The Applicant’s Counsel said they were not directly aware of any although drug use was a feature of entertainment. Safeguarding and first aiders would deal with this, and he stated the company had not had to call the police or ambulance in relation to drugs.
The Chair asked what the company policy was if members of staff found drugs on site. The Applicant’s Counsel explained that as with noise, behaving in a lawful way was in the terms and conditions of hire. He said the company promoted following the law and they worked with regulators and the police and made people aware of their own responsibilities. He explained there were reporting processes in place for the team.
The Chair asked for clarity on what would happen if drugs were found.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained it would be reported to the senior team and appropriate action would be taken.
The meeting was adjourned to allow for a comfort break and reconvened at 4pm.
The meeting resumed and the Legal Adviser advised that any questions asked on YouTube would not be responded to and that the only people who had registered to speak could ask questions.
Those who had made representations were then invited to ask questions of the Applicant. David Blackmore explained that context was everything and had to feel that they had an influence here. He asked if any of the Members had visited the site.
The Legal Adviser explained it was up to the panel to decide if they required a site visit. Councillor Folley said she had used google maps to look at the site so she was aware of the layout.
David Blackmore asked the Applicant’s Counsel if he thought the premises sat too close to the edge of the village.
The Legal Adviser explained to David Blackmore that his questions had to be relevant to Licensing and the four Licensing Objectives. He also explained that he would have an opportunity to make his representation later in the proceedings. The Chair further clarified what questions could be asked and that he would have an opportunity to make his representation later as David was confused about what he could ask.
The Applicant’s Counsel said he was happy to be asked anything but would choose not to answer if it wasn’t relevant to licensing. He explained that distance was a planning matter.
David said he hadn’t had the opportunity to respond to the Planning application so there was frustration. He questioned what the Applicant’s Counsel meant by no public access to the site as there were two vehicular accesses.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that the use of the site was for pre-booked events only. The bar would not be open to the public and the public would not be able to use the facilities but acknowledged there were footpaths and roads through the site.
David Blackmore said there were lots of references to Chapel Barn but they felt it wasn’t a similar situation. Chapel Barn was a different size and no-where near as close to a village. He felt that the references to past events run by Wilderness was irrelevant to what will happen at Blyth Barn in the future.
The Legal Adviser stepped in and explained that this was David Blackmore’s opportunity to ask questions and he would be able to make his case later.
David Blackmore asked if Chapel Barn was the same as Blyth Barn in terms of location and size.
The Applicant’s Counsel pointed out that he had explained it was smaller but that it was a licensed premises, like a deconstructed hotel, operated by the same team. They had purposefully mirrored the same licence and the same approach would be taken at Blyth Barn as at Chapel Barn to promote the licensing objectives.
David Blackmore asked if they could play music outside before 11pm.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that you can’t impose a restriction due to deregulation and the music act. However, the noise management plan was comprehensive. He pointed out that if there was irresponsible behaviour the Local Authority could review the licence under section 177a of the Licensing Act and put direct conditions on the premises for deregulated activities. Residents could also complain to the Environmental Protection team who had a duty to investigate and could serve notices on the premises.
David Blackmore asked that if they took a booking for a wedding two years in advance they wouldn’t be letting accommodation to others. That negated the talk about no sound going into the bedrooms.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that the entertainment area, residential accommodation and relaxation areas were next to each other. This was not a nightclub and some guests would go to bed earlier and there would be provision for children and wellness. The nature of the operation did mitigate against the worst-case scenario. He reminded those present that the High Court warned against elevating and exaggerating our fears.
Peter Rogers explained that by dealing with the worst scenario case for all events you were proactive and created a better situation.
David Blackmore asked how independent the acoustic advice was. The Parish Council could not afford a consultant but felt that if they did they would get a result that was more conducive, but that was conjecture.
Peter Rogers explained that the Parish Council could instruct an acoustic consultant to produce a noise impact assessment. He explained there was a Code of Conduct for those in his profession and he was a registered expert witness was different to an acoustic consultant who was employed to do a noise impact assessment. He had taken the evidence and interpreted it for the benefit of the decision makers and therefore he was independent.
Chair pointed out that he had already asked purposefully asked this question to reassure the objectors.
David Blackmore asked how many large events were anticipated per month.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained the programme for 2025 across the estate was about 28 at the moment. He noted that Blyth Barn wasn’t finished yet.
David Blackmore said there was some sense of satisfaction that people would be kept on site rather than coming to the village. He asked if they would hire security guards.
The Applicant’s Counsel said he had already explained the security set up. They would not be getting SIAs as you would see outside a pub or nightclub as there was no evidential need.
David Blackmore asked for clarity but the Chair said the question had been answered and they had gone into detail.
The Chair invited questions from any other objectors but there were none.
The Legal Adviser asked if the five conditions proposed in the acoustic report were to be added as conditions to the licence. The Applicant’s Counsel confirmed they were.
The Legal Adviser asked if the mitigation strategies as proposed on pages 18 and 19 would be part of the conditions.
The Applicant’s Counsel said they had tried to replicate the Chapel Barn licence. Box B – only the CCTV condition would make for a sound condition. Box C – repeating existing legislation so not a condition. Briefing and Fire Emergencies – covered by their existing legal duties and management. Box D – preferred the condition as suggested by Peter Rogers. He suggested it was better to require a noise management plan.
The Legal Adviser explained this wasn’t pre-determination but asked for clarity that they should cross out all of D and replace it with the five conditions contained in the noise management plan.
Peter Rogers clarified that if you wanted the tightest level of control the licence should ask for a noise management plan to be submitted and approved.
The Legal Adviser asked for confirmation that the Applicant would be happy for a condition to be imposed requiring the submission of and adherence to a noise management plan, should the licence be granted.
The Applicant’s Counsel confirmed it was acceptable and referred to condition 5 on p61. Licensing and Environmental Health would act as observers and advisers and he cited the reference on p62. East Suffolk could include additional elements that were of concern, eg bagpipes, when the noise management plan was written. He confirmed that the noise management plan would cover more than is covered in Box D.
The Legal Adviser made it clear to the members of the public attending that if the licence was granted the conditions had to be workable and enforceable and the licensee needed to understand what was required of them.
The Applicant’s Counsel said there were two other elements that could be taken from the operating schedule in box E as conditions: training in relation to safeguarding children and a strict Challenge 25 policy.
The Chair reassured those in the room that they were not negotiating a deal with any pre-determination that the Council was going to grant the licence. He explained that this was a legal discussion. The Legal Adviser explained it was better to have these discussions in public.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that the Council hadn’t made a decision, but the Committee needed all the information required before retiring to make their decision.
The Chair invited each party making a representation to present their case, including calling any witnesses. He reiterated that if it was something outside of the Licensing objectives they would be asked to stop referring to that. He explained that they could only determine on the licensing objectives that had been referred to. He also explained that everyone would be given an opportunity to speak but asked that they did not just repeat each other.
Objector One (Ken Burnett), asked if he could ask a question. It was established that he could, so he asked what the Applicant’s Counsel referred to when he talked about long term community benefits.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained that Wilderness was taking down overhead wires, contributed to the Millennium Green, rewilding and planting of the area. He pointed out that the company provided jobs for people in the local area. There was also spend in the local pub by staff and construction staff. He stated there were environmental benefits through the creation of lakes and planting of trees which encouraged wildlife.
The Chair explained he had allowed that question even though it was outside of the licensing objectives and asked further objectors to be mindful about the questions they asked. The Legal Adviser suggested that objectors could speak in order but only choose to speak if they had something additional to add, or everyone could speak but that could be very repetitive.
Objector Two (Jeanette Redway) introduced those making representations. She said that they didn’t know where Blyth Barn was as at the end of Laundry Lane was Valley Farm. Blyth Barn doesn’t exist and was hypothetical. In 2022 a planning application for three self-contained holiday lets for tourists was granted. What had been built should comply with the plans and conditions and the units used for tourist accommodation only. She mentioned there had been retrospective applications that had yet to be decided.
She found it very confusing that there was a licensing application for a property that didn’t exist with a start date of 1 February. She asked where this 18 bedroom hotel was located and queried that it was for corporate events rather than tourist use. Section 29 of the 2003 licensing act says a provisional statement can be applied for, for a building yet to be built or completed, but this was a full licence. She asked why a provisional statement had not been applied for.
She said the references to Chapel Barn were irrelevant as it was not in Huntingfield. There were lots of residents living next door to what was called Blyth Barn. She felt the application was a wish list and wondered if they thought it would make retrospective planning permission easier.
She summarised that if this application was granted there would be devasting impacts on the village that would be insurmountable. This was an irregular application that had been done prematurely and asked for it to be rejected. She stated the representations following would stick to the four licensing objectives and there wouldn’t be any repetition.
The Chair pointed out that he allowed her to speak because the context was useful but her objections were related to planning. He reminded the attendees that if people strayed from the four licensing objectives they would be asked to move on.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked if the Chair was allowing questions to each individual objector.
The Chair explained they would allow questions on this objector and the point of law could be dealt with by the Applicant’s Counsel.
The Applicant’s Counsel reminded Members that they were considering the application before them, and that Planning and legal requirements were separate. Chapter 4 of the Licensing Policy makes it clear that East Suffolk would prefer planning permission to be in place before the licence but it didn’t stop them making the application.
The Legal Adviser said questions could be asked of each individual person but only to those registered to speak. He explained that if individuals would be repeating previous comments they needed to consider if this was useful to the committee or not.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked those making representations to state their name at the start of their representation. She confirmed that only those who had registered would be able to speak.
The Chair appreciated that the application was very emotive and explained that the Committee did care but they were constrained by the four licensing objectives.
David Blackmore said to date there had been a good working relationship between the village and the Wilderness Reserve and they had been working together for decades but the trust had broken down recently due to traffic issues. He wanted to add some context.
The Chair explained that Jeanette Redway had given the context already so asked him to move on.
David asked about p16 section E live music there was a comment about the site benefitting from good road access.
The Chair advised that was not a licensing matter and they could only determine on the licensing objectives. He explained they had already given the objectors a lot of leeway on what had been said.
David Blackmore turned to the matter of prevention of crime and disorder. With a 24 hour alcohol licence and upwards of 300 metropolitan visitors it would be naïve to think there wouldn’t be overconsumption of alcohol and drugs. He asked if 2 security guards and 19 front of house staff could adequately police hundreds of guests. There was a fear that potentially intoxicated guests leaving the site would increase the level of crime with damage to property and use of drugs and alcohol and drink driving.
He explained that the site shared a border with the orchard and the park with a zip wire. They were worried that intoxicated guests would make the 5 min walk to the centre of the village and interact with those using the play equipment. None of the other Wilderness properties were that close to a centre of population and they were concerned about the intrusive noise. The Parish Council could not afford an acoustic assessment. He referenced the noise management plan and said it would be impossible to keep doors shut after 11pm as there would be a constant flow of people in and out of the building. He pointed out that it was marketed as being in a beautiful rural area which guests would like to take advantage of. They felt the doors would constantly being opened. With music allowed from 8am to 11pm and a 24 hour alcohol licence and hundreds of guests it had all the ingredients of a rave. There would be significant noise pollution to the village.
He said there would be loss of public amenity. They would lose the peaceful enjoyment of their homes and gardens, the Millennium Green and the orchard. They would be unable to let their children play out on their own.
The Chair invited questions from Members.
Councillor Folley asked where he got the figures of 500 guests from and with all due respect she felt he didn’t look like the sort of person who had been to a rave.
The Applicant’s Counsel explained it related to deregulation and live music, that you can play music from 8am to 11pm for up to 500 people without a licence.
The Chair felt it was unlikely that there would be hundreds of out-of-control marauding metropolitans who would ruin the village. He asked for clarity that their concerns related to noise and antisocial behaviour.
David Blackmore said they were looking at the worst-case scenario and it might be slightly over dramatic but this forum was their only chance to say it as they saw it.
Objector Three (Susan Brewer) believed that the principle of saying there was an acceptable level of noise which was only subject to mitigation if you went over the level was not acceptable as any noise was too much noise. She referred to the tag line on Council emails (Our ambition is to deliver the best possible quality of life for everyone who lives in, works in and visits East Suffolk) and therefore with this in mind eh asked the committee to reject the application.
The Applicant’s Counsel stated that as a default he wouldn’t ask any questions unless there was a pressing need.
Objector One (Ken Burnett) was concerned about protection of children from harm. The proposed development was right next to the play area Millennium Green and on a summer’s evening guests would be tempted to come into the village and use the zip wire. He felt it would happen most weekends. Residents were excluded from the Wilderness Reserve but visitors had easy access to the beautiful village. He feared that the peace and tranquillity would be taken away from their village. He did not agree that fears could not be used as evidence. This was one in a long line of developments in the area and the damage now outweighed the benefits and it was changing the quality of their life. He was concerned about the 24/7 alcohol licence. He said people wouldn’t want a good night’s sleep but would want a bloody great party so they would be coming into their village and there was no way they could be stopped. He felt it was too far and too much.
The Legal Adviser and Chair explained the 24/7 licence was because Blyth Barn was effectively a hotel.
Objector One felt the 24 hour licence would be promoted by Wilderness as a benefit and guests would take full advantage of the offerings onsite and then go for a walk in their village.
Objector Four (Helen Cannon) moved to the village from the metropolis because it was so quiet and peaceful. She acknowledged the good relationship with Wilderness so it was a shock to see this premises licence come through. It was more suitable to an urban or a more remote site not surrounded by residences and would only cause a noise nuisance. She had been kept awake by grain driers some miles off, they heard the Latitude Festival in the summer so noise travelled at night and no scientific evidence could prove otherwise.
Objector Five (Sarah Kline, known as Sally), talked on behalf of the Parish Council and another Councillor Edward Watson. There was not enough accommodation for the numbers they were talking about, even if they stayed on other premises on the Wilderness Reserve. Everyone would be coming through the village whether on foot or driving on a single-track road. There was no building yet and so they were assuming they would get permission for the building they were constructing and referenced the demolition of the buildings that they did have planning permission for. The Chair interjected and pointed out that these were planning considerations and so not relevant to this hearing. Sally concluded stating that surely a licence could only be granted on approved premises.
Objector Six (Nina Roe) explained that her family had lived there for over 50 years. She worked in hospitality and had run her own company for 10 years and had catered for weddings in the local area including on the Wilderness Reserve. She was fully aware of the potential disruption, explaining that dealing with wedding guests was like herding cats, and events would start from as early as 1pm to as late as 6pm. There would be invasive noise to Huntingfield especially from the proposed marquees. There was no late-night noise in Huntingfield now and that is why they chose to live there. She asked the Committee to consider limiting the number of large events in summer months, for Wilderness to consult with the Parish Council when large scale events were going to take place, restricting music to 11pm, and midweek time restrictions and sales of alcohol to 1pm (later corrected to 1am). She felt the application was not appropriate for this rural setting which would negatively impact residents.
Objector Seven (Richard Tyler) had been a Huntingfield resident since 1978 and lived in the property closest to the site. From his boundary to the boundary of the estate was 55m and then approximately a further 15m to the corner of the car park. For the last four years the noise he has heard indoors and outdoors has been appalling. Visitors have jumped when someone at the farm has dropped something. He questioned the low level of noise predictions and why the survey was done in Feb 2021 in buildings that didn’t exist with an overrider about the bird noise in February. He questioned the glorification of what was being said. He stated that he was not prepared to sit in his garden and hear levels higher than ambient levels of countryside noise. It was a quiet village but it wasn’t anymore.
The Chair thanked those attending for taking the approach of not speaking if they would just repeat what had already been said. He reiterated that the Sub-Committee had read all the representations.
David Blackmore stated that it was the wrong development in the wrong place, that was out of scale and inappropriate. Approving the licence would materially affect the quality of life of the residents of Huntingfield. Ideally the licensing application should have come after the planning applications. They vehemently opposed the application but should it be granted these were the conditions they wanted:
1. There were verbal commitments from Wilderness to stop using Laundry Lane and only use Brick Lane for emergency vehicles.
The Chair pointed out that this was a planning matter which was confirmed by the Legal Adviser. David Blackmore realised that but as traffic was their biggest concern he wanted to include it.
2. Should only be 6 events per year and only 1 per month in the summer months (June-August).
3. 21 staff was unrealistic and the number should be increased – especially first aiders. Night security guards should be increased to ensure lawful behaviour of guests.
4. The local village hall must stop events by 11pm and vacated by midnight so the same restriction should apply.
5. No amplified sound should be played in any outside in any area.
He pointed out that they still objected to this application. They had concerns about the policing of conditions as it was such a remote rural area. He said the company showed the same cavalier attitude to licensing as they did to planning system. David thanked the Members and said their future was now in their hands.
The Chair thanked him for his persistence and for presenting his case. He reiterated that the Sub-Committee had sympathies but there were strict guidelines the Sub-Committee had to adhere to.
The Chair then invited closing statements.
The Senior Licensing Officer clarified a couple of points. The Applicant’s Counsel said he hadn’t received the noise management plan as part of the pack. She explained that because it came from the Applicant, Licensing don’t send back what was sent to the team. She explained that it wasn’t a public document but it was given to all the Sub-Committee Members. She asked for clarity if the noise management plan would be an integral part of the premises licence and therefore publicly available. With regards to noise levels and limiters the Applicant was aware of the issues that were raised with the Chapel Barn application. She explained that the Council’s Environmental Protection Team didn’t want to get involved with setting noise levels and limitations. They were happy for these to be set by the experts so asked if the Applicant would be happy setting the levels and meeting them. She reiterated that any licensed premises for on sales of alcohol was automatically permitted to have amplified music in its licensable areas.
The objectors declined the opportunity to make a closing statement.
The Applicant’s Counsel concluded by thanking everyone. The team at Wilderness Reserve recognised how impactful this application could be but hoped that what had been suggested would counter the fears. He reiterated that the fears were not enough to provoke objections from regulatory bodies and if the Council agreed with the objectors it looked like the regulatory bodies had got it wrong.
He continued that the noise management plan had not been criticised but the objectors had challenged the integrity of Peter Rogers who was the expert of experts. They were happy to make the noise management plan public. He was happy for Condition 5 of Peter Roger’s report on p62 to be submitted in writing to ESC council and said it could either be struck out or they could engage in consultation. He would not agree to a condition with respect to deregulation and live music or accept restrictions on staffing and security or hours. He questioned what evidence had been heard to arbitrarily impose hours. On p63 Peter Rogers concluded that they were promoting the licensing objectives and actually promoted a far lower impact. Happy to address if anyone had any evidence to suggest the conclusions were wrong.
The Applicant’s Counsel continued that he was encouraged that there were very vigilant local residents and was aware there was a wider picture. In response to the Parish Council’s concerns about traffic Wilderness had applied for permission for a road and bridge, which has been granted. He was grateful to local residents who indicated there was a good working relationship. He recognised the concerns and fears and took them seriously. In response to concerns about noise and smoking on a warm summer’s night he explained there were dedicated smoking areas and how they would be managed. The terms and conditions stated that doors facing the pool cannot be opened and you had to leave by the spiral staircase. They have considered the type of pushy clients they could have. The doors would be fitted with a sensor linked to the noise limiting system. He explained that this was not a standard hotel room and felt it was unrealistic to think guests would go and sit on the damp grass at the Millennium Green when they’d paid so much money to be onsite.
He stated that the bar would close when the regulated entertainment came to an end at 1am and guests would be expected to return to the comfort of their rooms rather than the Millennium Green. He felt the fears were emotionally amplified and these were unlikely and unrealistic. The later operation hours than anywhere nearby, together with the context and offerings encouraged guests to stay on site. Any complaints would be dealt with and could lead to a review of the licence. He said it was in the company’s best interests to maintain and preserve a good relationship with the Council and local residents. He commended the application as a modern contemporary use of a rural development so those evil city dwellers could learn about the slower pace of country life.
The Chair advised that the Sub-Committee would adjourn for an hour and return at 6.50pm.
DECISION NOTICE
The Wilderness Reserve Ltd has applied for a new premises licence for Blyth Barn, Laundry Lane, Huntingfield, Halesworth, Suffolk, IP19 0PY. The proposed hours are for:
Live Music - Monday to Sunday - 08:00 to 01:00
Recorded Music - Monday to Sunday - 08:00 to 01:00
Late night refreshment - Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00
Supply of Alcohol - On and Off the premises - Monday to Sunday - 00:00 to 00:00
The premises will be private and not open to the public.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Senior Licensing Officer, who summarised the report and confirmed that the hearing had been held as 26 representations against the application had been received from other persons. The Senior Licensing Officer indicated that some of the concerns related to planning issues rather than licensing matters but provided there was a licensing matter contained in the objection it was accepted. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that the Responsible Authorities had received notice of the application but that no Responsible Authority had objected.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant’s Counsel and an acoustic expert. Counsel indicated that the Licensing Authority could only be concerned with matters relating to licensing objectives. The Counsel confirmed that the intention of this premises was to be a high-end, self-contained venue for weddings, corporate events and celebrations and occasions. It was intended that guests would stay at the premises from check in to check out and would not need to leave the site due to the facilities provided. There was no lighting to encourage guests to go off site and in fact the exclusivity and seclusion was integral to the business model.
It was accepted that there was not enough accommodation at the Blyth Barn site, however it was anticipated that guests would use other properties within the estate with the Rangers assisting with transportation. However it is apparent that on some occasions additional accommodation off site would be required and that vehicles will be leaving the site after events.
In relation to noise pollution, a report was presented from the acoustic expert Peter Rogers which undertook a worst case scenario assessment and had proposed mitigation methods including automatic sensors on doors connecting to the sound limiting system. It was also made clear that although each venue operated by the Wilderness Reserve Ltd was self-contained and therefore they were keen to ensure that noise did not travel from one part of the estate to another to cause disturbance. Given that some bedrooms and self-contained properties were closer to the Blyth Barn than the neighbouring village it was unlikely that any unacceptable noise disturbance would reach the village.
In relation to the licensing objectives it was proposed by the applicant’s Counsel that the following conditions be imposed:
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
• CCTV will be in operation across licensed areas and will record for 28 days and will be available to the Police.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
• Music Noise level (internal or external) during any event emitted by amplified equipment to be controlled by acoustic limiting devices which are set up by a qualified acoustician to the levels set out in Table 4 of the report of Peter Rogers dated 7th November 2024.
• Noise from people using the outside areas of the venue must be controlled by an active management process defined in a noise management plan during the evening and night hours.
• Noise from the car park shall be minimised by a noise barrier to a specification required to achieve at least 11db reduction in car door slams.
• The total plant noise emissions as a rating level shall not exceed a Law of 85db before 23:00 hours and 75db(A) after 23:00 hours. A plant noise assessment for the scheme should be submitted to East Suffolk Council demonstrating how this can be achieved.
• A noise management plan shall be prepared in consultation with East Suffolk Council’s Environmental Protection Team prior to any licensable activities taking place. Any licensable activities must be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted noise management plan.
Protection of Children from Harm
• All staff must be provided with comprehensive training with relation to service of alcohol.
• A strict Challenge 25 Policy must be enforced throughout the premises and a refusals and incidents log maintained and must be made available to the Police or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority as required.
The Counsel reminded the Sub-Committee that no Responsible Authority had objected and that the Responsible Authorities were experts in their field and directed Members to s9.12 of the Statutory s182 Guidance.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the local residents, who were extremely concerned that their tranquil and peaceful village would be destroyed by the visitors who would overspill and cause a nuisance in the village, including to the Millennium Green. In addition, they were concerned that the noise from the premises would cause a nuisance and have an impact on their quality of life. The Sub-Committee did raise a number of issues such as traffic that were not related to the licensing objectives and so could not be considered. They also had concerns about drunken behaviour, drug taking and lack of security. The applicant’s Counsel advised that there were security measures in place that were tailored to the needs of the guests.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations received from the applicant and other objectors has decided to grant the licence as applied for subject to the additional conditions as specified below.
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
• CCTV will be in operation across licensed areas and will record for 28 days and will be available to the Police.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
• Music Noise level (internal or external) during any event emitted by amplified equipment to be controlled by acoustic limiting devices which are set up by a qualified acoustician to the levels set out in Table 4 of the report of Peter Rogers dated 7th November 2024.
• Noise from people using the outside areas of the venue must be controlled by an active management process defined in a noise management plan during the evening and night hours.
• Noise from the car park shall be minimised by a noise barrier to a specification required to achieve at least 11db reduction in car door slams.
• The total plant noise emissions as a rating level shall not exceed a Law of 85db before 23:00 hours and 75db(A) after 23:00 hours. A plant noise assessment for the scheme should be submitted to East Suffolk Council demonstrating how this can be achieved.
• A noise management plan shall be prepared in consultation with East Suffolk Council’s Environmental Protection Team prior to any licensable activities taking place. Any licensable activities must be carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted noise management plan.
Protection of Children from Harm
• All staff must be provided with comprehensive training with relation to service of alcohol.
A strict Challenge 25 Policy must be enforced throughout the premises and a refusals and incidents log maintained and must be made available to the Police or an Authorised Officer of the Licensing Authority as required.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of the applicant, objectors as well as the Licensing Officer’s report. The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own licensing guidance and statement of licensing policy, as well as the Statutory Section 182 guidance, and Human Rights Act 1998.
The Sub-Committee notes that paragraph 9.12 of the Section 182 statutory guidance states that the responsible authorities are experts in their respective fields and great weight should be placed on their representations or lack of. In this case the Sub-Committee places great weight on the fact that Responsible Authorities, in particular the Police and Environmental Health, have not raised any objections. Whilst the Sub-Committee notes the residents’ objections the Sub-committee relies on evidence and the fact that no Responsible
Authority has objected is in itself evidence that the licence granted is capable of promoting the licensing objectives.
Whilst the Sub-Committee is sympathetic to the requests that there be no noise whatsoever from the premises reaching the village, the Sub-Committee is of the view that this would be disproportionate and m6 taking into account para 2.25 of s182 Guidance is satisfied that the above conditions are satisfactory in preventing public nuisance.
There is further reassurance by the fact that the Responsible Authorities have seen the acoustic report and not raised any objections to it therefore the Sub-Committee is satisfied that the conditions within the report are capable of promoting the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee acknowledges the concerns of the objectors but feels that they can be mitigated by the conditions attached to this licence.
In relation to some of the concerns raised relating to planning matters. Nothing in this decision should be taken as expressing any view as to whether planning permission would be granted and nothing in this decision notice shall be treated as expressly or implicitly granting planning permission for any works required under the conditions of this licence.
The Sub-Committee would also like to reassure the objectors that this matter could be brought back for review if there was evidence that the premises when operating was in breach of its conditions or if the conditions prove insufficient to promote the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee is therefore satisfied that that licence can be granted as applied for subject to the conditions agreed.
Anyone affected by this decision has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision.
Date: 15 January 2025