4
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2397 of the Licensing Officer, which related to an application for a new premises licence at Husk, Walnut Tree Farm, Thorington, Suffolk, IP17 3QP.
The Chair invited the Licensing Officer to summarise the report.
The Sub-Committee was advised of the details of the application and that a hearing had been convened as on representation from a local resident had been received. The Licensing Officer noted that there had been no objections to the application from any of the responsible authorities consulted.
The Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that the applicants had previously held a licence, which lapsed when the company dissolved in August 2024 and became a limited company. A copy of the licence was provided with the report which demonstrated that similar activities and times were now being requested with the addition of off sales for alcohol. The licence was for the supply of on and off sales of alcohol, Monday to Sunday, 12:00 to 22:00. During the time that the applicants held the previous licence there were no complaints recorded.
Following the objection, an additional paper was submitted by the applicants in which they offered to reduce the licensable hours to Thursday to Saturday, 12 noon to 10pm and Sunday 12 noon to 5pm.
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 from these options:
1. Granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and to those consistent with the application.
2. Granting the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.
3. Rejecting the application. The Sub-Committee was asked to state its reasons when announcing its decision. The Chair invited questions to the Licensing Officer. The Sub-Committee was asked to state its reasons when announcing its decision.
The Chair invited questions to the Senior Licensing Officer.
In response to Councillor Reeves, IP17 3QP was confirmed as the correct postcode.
Councillor Reeves noted that the licence was similar to that previously granted, but that the licensed area was being expanded, he asked the Licensing Officer to clarify. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the new plan was slightly expanded to allow an off-sales area outside and the inclusion of 2 barns. The times and activities remained the same.
There were no questions from the applicant for the Licensing Officer.
The objector asked what date the previous licence was issued. The Licensing Officer confirmed it was February 2023. He noted that the variation application had been submitted on 18 March 2025, yet this was invalid as the company dissolved on 6 August 2024. He asked if the licence was used.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that at the time the licence was granted they were not aware that the licence had lapsed. The applicants had not been advised of the impact of the change of company status on their licence, as soon as they were aware of the change they notified licensing, who checked Companies House and began the process for the new premises licence application.
The Chair invited the applicants and their representative to speak.
The applicants’ solicitor told the Sub-Committee that they had amended the application and that there had been email correspondence with the objector and his wife, but they had been unable to reach a solution which was why the hearing was still going ahead. As part of the correspondence the applicants had offered to reduce the scope of the licence.
The applicants’ solicitor told the Sub-Committee that the new application was wider in scope than the previous licence. The previous licence related to the Supper Club, which was the core business of Husk and would remain so, but that licence prevented any expansion beyond the Supper Club, which was why they submitted the variation of licence. This variation led to the discovery that the licence had lapsed. The applicants had received professional advice during the business status change but were not made aware of the impact on licensing.
The applicants’ solicitor outlined the terms of the licence that they were now applying for and the suggested hours. The suggested reduced hours were in response to the concerns raised by the Objector.
The background to Husk was explained to the Sub-Committee. It was a business that made an outstanding contribution to Suffolk. Supporting papers provided as part of the licence application showed the accolades that the business had received. The owners were both from the hospitality industry, one was an award-winning chef. They had bought the business and invested in it considerably, turning it from a disused farm into an up-to-date Agri-tourism operation which had won a number of awards and was very popular with tourists and local people. As an Agri-tourism business, they produced 70-80% of their own food, developing rural areas. The business had loyal relationships with local suppliers, committed to using local produce wherever possible and supporting the local economy. The Solicitor noted that although that may not be relevant to the licensing objectives, it was relevant in demonstrating that the business was successful and was looking to expand on that success through the revised licence application.
To help the Sub-Committee understand the scope of the business and the requested licence, the Solicitor presented a plan of the premises. The Sub-Committee was shown the layout of the entire premises, how the building was accessed, the accommodation on offer and the layout of the barns. He reiterated that the core business would remain the food, with the additional use of the sunset barn and terrace for drinks. This would be for both supper club guests and those just wishing to have a drink. If the barns were to be used for events, then this permission would be sought via a Temporary Event Notice (TEN), which would limit the owners to 15 events per year. They were currently not looking for this licence application to permit those. The Solicitor reassured the Sub-Committee and the Objector that the application was not for an event space at all, they were focused on food and drink and accommodation with the addition of the sunset bar.
The Chair invited questions to the applicants.
Councillor Reeves had visited the premises and only saw Hanger Barn. He noted on the publicity the 2 barns were marketed separately with a capacity of 140 people each. The applicants clarified that it was a maximum capacity of 140 people across the entire site. The Solicitor added that should they hold an event of that size they would submit a TEN with a considerable management policy. They were not wishing to change the environment of the tranquil village, and they were confident that their core business could be operated without affecting the local residents.
Councillor Reeves asked how the venue would cope with the parking requirements. The applicants replied that previously they had mowed and marked out a field for parking. There was ample space for temporary parking should the need arise, and they would notify neighbours of any TEN as they had done in the past. It was reiterated that events were not their core business, they were confident that they could operate their core business without adversely affecting the local residents. The Solicitor added it was not automatically assumed that they would be granted a TEN, it was subject to support from Environmental Protection etc, a safeguarding element for local residents.
The Chair invited the applicants to continue with their representation. The applicants told the Sub-Committee that they were hugely passionate about their business and about Suffolk. They had poured their heart and soul into the business, and they were proud of the awards they had won, including best food and drink in Suffolk. They had a fantastic local following and brought tourists to the area. Most guests stayed for 2 nights and visited elsewhere, they made recommendations and had a great relationship with all their contemporaries in the hospitality sector. They employed a small team of local people and exclusively used Suffolk suppliers. They had traded faultlessly with no incidents and the responsible authorities had assessed their set up twice and, on both occasions, deemed their set up to be suitable. They were responsible business owners. They sought to find a resolution with their neighbours and hoped that they could find that resolution today.
The Chair invited questions to the applicants.
The Objector referred to an email he had sent the applicants with further questions, none of which had been answered, he asked the applicants why they hadn’t responded. The applicants confirmed they sought professional advice and were reluctantly advised by their solicitor to not engage in any further communications as realistically they were not likely to reach a solution prior to the hearing.
The objector noted that the questions had still not been answered by the applicants.
The applicants’ solicitor addressed the points raised in the objector’s email.
- Licence detail was clarified.
- Maximum number attending supper club – 18
- Maximum number including other guests – approximately 40
- Note from website events of up to 140 people – this would not be under this licence application, would rely on TEN, with a maximum of 15 events as that is the temporary event legal maximum.
The applicants’ solicitor told the Sub-Committee they had presented the application, and the point has been made that there were no complaints. They were responsible business owners; they were looking to extend the business that they already operated but their core business would remain the same.
There may be more traffic arising from the use of the Sunset Barn, but they were unsure how many would visit, it was not a pub, and it was not on a passing track. They wouldn’t know how successful that part of the business would be until they started it.
The applicants’ solicitor noted that the only issue of relevance to the objector would be traffic. They were too far away to experience any other impact. They were not anticipating large volumes of traffic. It would be a slow passage of traffic; some guests would arrive by taxi and with a Supper Club of 18 there may be 9 vehicles. Some guests would stay and therefore not use vehicles. Other people using the Sunset Barn would arrive and leave at different times and could not stay past 10pm as that was the licensable hours. He questioned how relevant the traffic was as it would not amount to a public nuisance. If there were events with more traffic, they would give notice and have policies in place to minimise the impact on residents.
Questions from the Licensing Officer:
The Licensing Officer confirmed that they were happy with the changes to the hours, it was a clear similar licence that was being applied for, with the extension of land for off-sales, the barns had been explained and named and they were completely satisfied with the activities proposed.
It was correct that there were 15 TENs permitted in a year. The TEN overrides the premises licence, they would provide notice that they were having an event and only a responsible authority can object. They would continue unless something went wrong.
Questions from the Objector:
The objector asked what was being applied for as it seemed to keep moving. He noted the hours had been cut back to 10pm. He said the application was all about the supper club, but what was envisaged was an expansion of 2 barns. They were taking the website at face value and the inclusion of events of up to 140 people, which would amount to traffic moving up and down 2 unmade roads and inevitable cause nuisance to residents.
The applicants replied that the application describes the core business but not the whole business, the hours and plan set out clearly what has been applied for. In relation to traffic, they were respectfully confident and disagreed that traffic would cause a nuisance. The alcohol licence they were applying for had been altered in response to the representation received. They were not talking 140 guests.
The objector replied that they could apply for a TEN once they got the licence and it was unmade road, even if capped at 140 guests, were they suggesting it wouldn’t cause resident disturbance.
The applicants’ solicitor reiterated that they were not talking about a regular occurrence. The premises was not designed to be an event space, it was focusing on their core business with extra guests for drinks. It would be completely unsustainable to have a wedding every weekend. They wished to maintain the business and occasionally have an event, for which local residents would have notice. They added if there were issues then they could complain to Environmental Protection.
With the revised licence there could be more traffic, potentially 40 people with 20 cars would be the worst-case scenario. This would be anticipated as slow traffic over the course of 2 hours.
The Objector challenged that the applicant was focusing on the supper club but there was much more than that planned.
The Solicitor confirmed that they had shared the full plans with the Sub-Committee. They had space for events but had the core business that would be maintained. There was the opportunity to have weddings on an occasional basis.
The Objector noted the focus had been on the supper club and asked why it started at noon, and whether they would consider it starting from 4pm. The applicants responded that was too restrictive, within those hours they may do a lunch or a supper, but they wouldn’t do 2 in a day.
The Objector asked if the applicant was willing to consider a maximum number of people attending the event, or revise the noon start? They replied that they did not intend to restrict it.
The Objector concluded although the point was made there were no complaints it was a wholly different operation to what was now being proposed. The Solicitor replied that they were confident that it would not cause more issues.
Objector representation
The objector referred to the objection that had been submitted as part of the meeting documents, saying it was largely concerned with the public nuisance from the traffic on 2 unadopted tracks.
The objector told the Sub-Committee that for more that there had been noise from construction traffic travelling up and down the track outside their house, for almost two years. He added it would be different if it was a smooth tarmacked road, but this was a narrow unsuitable track. As a side point, the objector said the track would not be suitable for emergency vehicles.
He stated that the location was not suitable for large events. To date there had been traffic noise, and it had not been a big business. Taking the website at face value, he said it was their intention to make it a bigger business and host large events, which would result in public nuisance from the traffic.
He said it was not a solution to deny that would be the case or to suggest that complaints could be logged if there were concerns. He said the licence was not going to be revoked for a noise complaint and therefore the sensible solution would be to put a restrict on the numbers attending or hours of operation.
The objector asked for more detail about Temporary Event Notices (TEN). The Legal Advisor confirmed they were not considering a TEN and it would not be possible to add a condition regarding those.
Referring to Google Earth images, the objector said there was a Public Right of Way to Laundry Farm, hardcore was laid across the field for a new track, but this offered no mitigation when passing their house. He added Drovers Road got washed away every winter.
He concluded that his primary objection was the traffic which was allied to the numbers attending the business and giving notice to the residents was not the solution.
The Chair invited questions to the Objector.
In response to the applicant, the Objector confirmed they divided their time between two homes.
There were no further questions, therefore the Chair invited all parties to sum up.
Summing up from the Licensing Officer:
The Licencing Officer confirmed that the TEN could be submitted now, it was not an application. It was correct that there could be 15 TENs (events) per year. A TEN could stipulate the number of people attending, up to a maximum of 499 people.
The Licensing Officer noted the point that was made by emergency vehicles using the track could be a concern now.
The Premises licence was not set in stone, should any nuisance be caused, then anyone could apply for a review.
The times applied for on the licence was clarified, with the Licensing Officer confirming that they encourage applicants to apply for the maximum hours that they may need.
The applicant summed up:
The applicants’ solicitor said the traffic was not relevant to licencing. The Legal Advisor interjected, stating that he accepted the objection, and it was relevant, whilst not so much of a concern for a small-scale operation it could be for larger events.
The applicants told the Sub-Committee that they hoped they found them to be a good and reliable operation. It was a successful business; they had the land, and they wanted to be able to use it and for more people to enjoy it. Whilst it would lead to more traffic, they were not looking to create an event business via the back door. It was not the main focus of the business, and it would require considerable organisation which was doable on an occasional basis only. They had good relationships with their neighbours, they recognised that this could be better with the objector and hoped it would be. The business was good for the village, and good for the area. They were confident the increase in traffic would not amount to a public notice. The works traffic would soon be complete, but they would hear cars intermittently and slowly. It would not be late at night and would not amount to a public nuisance. They were not planning on opening up a “boozer”, they had no intention of competing with the 2 pubs in the area. The sunset bar would serve from their carefully curated wine list with no draft beer. To conclude, the business was there to serve from wine and food and encourage sustainable farming, it was a really nice establishment.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision.
Decision Notice
Husk Thorington Ltd (the Applicant) has applied for a new premises licence at Husk, Walnut Tree Farm, Thorington, Suffolk IP17 3QP to permit the supply of on and off sales of alcohol, Monday to Sunday, 12:00 to 22:00.
This Sub-Committee has been held as one representation against the application had been received from other persons. The grounds for objection were that the licensing activities would result in a public nuisance, namely traffic to such an extent as to be a nuisance.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer confirmed that there were no representations received from any responsible authorities.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant who indicated that part of the premises had previously held a licence from February 2023 to August 2024, when the licence lapsed due to a change in the owner from a limited liability partnership to a limited company. The applicants had not realised that the change in business structure would cause their licence to lapse.
A new application was made in March 2025. The new licence application included two barns which were not in the previous licence and the proposed hours were as above. The new application would remove the requirement that all alcohol be consumed with a substantial meal and would allow the supply of alcohol for consumption both on and off the premises.
Following the objection, the applicants had offered to reduce the licensable hours to Thursday to Saturday, 12 noon to 10pm and Sunday 12 noon to 5pm. The applicant stated that they were not intending to run an events-based business as this was contrary to their preferred use of the premises and would cause unnecessary disruption to their premises.
In relation to traffic, in their experience, 18 patrons meant 9 vehicles, and they anticipated moving forward, having 40 guests at any one time with the expanded licence, this would equate to approximately 20 vehicles. These vehicles would not leave and arrive at the same time.
If an event was held, additional parking could be managed by the use of a neighbouring field on their land, and an event plan would be drawn up to take into account traffic. It was also anticipated that no event would hold more than 140 people.
The objector was concerned about the effect of the additional traffic, saying that they could hear the construction traffic now, and if the licence was granted then the traffic would increase to such an extent as to cause a public nuisance and interfere with their enjoyment of their land. The access way was unmade and unsuitable for this use.
The objector was also concerned about the additional noise that may be caused by the expanded licence and any Temporary Event Notice as noise would travel through the countryside. The objector raised the issue of the hours applied for as this would allow more than a supper club and would involve an expansion of the business and therefore disruption caused.
The objector was critical of the fact that the applicants had not answered his questions of the 12 May. The applicant had not responded to these following legal advice and proceeded to answer them during the licensing hearing.
The applicant in turn asked whether this was the objector’s second home, to which the objector replied they had another home in London but spent considerable time in both.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations from the applicant and the objector, has decided to grant the amended application as applied for. For the avoidance of doubt the licensing hours are to be:
On and Off sales:
Thursday to Saturday, 12.00 noon to 22.00 and Sunday 12.00 noon to 17.00
Opening hours:
Thursday to Saturday, 12.00 noon to 22.00 and Sunday 12.00 noon to 17.00
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the applicant and objector 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 ‘public nuisance’ should be interpreted in its widest sense to include such issues as traffic, where these matters impact on those living, working or otherwise engaged in normal activity in the vicinity of a licensed premises as per paragraph 2.22 of Statutory Guidance. The Sub-Committee notes paragraph 2.25 of the Statutory Guidance states that the most sensitive period for disruption is between 11pm and 8am. The hours of operation of the premises do not fall within the sensitive period. Whilst this paragraph refers primarily to noise nuisance, the Sub-Committee considers that this would also apply to traffic. The Sub-Committee notes that the applicant has willingly reduced their hours to attempt to go some way with dealing with the objector’s concerns.
The Sub-Committee notes that the applicant does not intend to run an events-based business but intends to continue base their business around their supper club, but with additional guests for drinks. Given the number of guests anticipated, the Sub-Committee is of the view that the additional traffic would not amount to a public nuisance, as they would not all be arriving and leaving at the same time.
In relation to noise, the Sub-Committee notes this has been raised by the objector only at the hearing, and notes that no responsible body or other neighbouring property has objected on the basis of noise. Given this and the distance between the licensed premises and the objector’s property, along with the proposed licensed hours, the Sub-Committee does not consider that this would amount to a public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee notes that paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Guidance makes it clear that responsible bodies are experts in their respective fields and that licensing author ities must consider all relevant representations from responsible authorities carefully, the Sub-Committee places weight on the fact that no responsible authority has deemed it necessary to object to this application.
The Sub-Committee wishes to make it clear that it has not placed less weight on the objection due to the fact that the objector own’s more than one property.
The Sub-Committee therefore considers that the licence applied for, subject to the amended hours, is capable of promoting the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee has not determined whether any Temporary Event Notices (TEN) should be granted in the future as this is not a matter for this Sub-Committee. Any TEN will be considered on its own merits.
The Sub-Committee also notes that if there are any problems due to licensable activities in the future, the licence can, on review, be varied, suspended or revoked.
Under Schedule 5 Paragraph 2 of the Licensing Act 2003, the applicant/licence holder or anyone who has made a representation has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision.
Date: 22 May 2025