5
The Sub-Committee received report ES/2404 of the Licensing Officer, which related to an application for a new premises licence at Three Guys Barbers, 49 Blyburgate, Beccles, Suffolk, NR34 9TQ.
The Chair invited the Senior 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 eight relevant representations against the application had been received. There had been no objections from the responsible authorities. Additional conditions were agreed with the police during the consultation period and the applicant had also suggested a further four conditions. These were all contained within the report. Four objectors would like to speak today. A late paper had been circulated to the committee and applicant of photos of the outside of the premises.
The Sub-Committee was advised that the proposed opening hours were:
Proposed Licensable Hours
Monday to Saturday 11:30 to 22:30
Sunday 11:30 to 21:30
New Year’s Eve until 02:00
Proposed Opening Hours
Monday to Friday 09:00 to 23:00
Saturday 08:00 to 23:00
Sunday 10:00 to 22:00
The Sub-Committee was informed that when making 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 either:
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 Legal Adviser asked the Senior Licensing Officer if the premises had been licensed before. The Senior Licensing Officer checked their records and confirmed that it had not been licensed before. The Legal Adviser asked if there were any nearby licensed premises. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that there was nothing particularly near to this premises. The Chair suggested the objectors would be able to clarify this.
The applicant was invited to make his case. The application was underpinned by conditions which showed responsible retailing. He pointed out that there were no objections or concerns from the responsible authorities. Residents and Town Council concerns had been taken seriously and steps taken to address them.
With regard to concerns about parking and traffic these were planning concerns and not licensing. He did not believe any additional parking or traffic issues would arise from this application. He believed it was a unique community focused venue and the nearest similar venue was in Norwich.
He explained that he had operated a successful licensed venue three doors away and never had any complaints. He agreed to strict conditions regarding sales of alcohol including membership and record keeping and that under 18s must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. In response to concerns about bottlenecks the plans had been redesigned.
He pointed out that alcohol was secondary to the business. It was not a bar or a nightclub and the premises would operate regardless of the licence being granted or refused.
To show his commitment to the licensing objectives high spec CCTV was already in place which covered the entrance. Staff would be trained in the sale of alcohol and ID checks. There would be regular equipment checks and adequate first aid supplies. Alcohol would only be consumed on the premises and waste would be taken to an industrial bin at 43 Blyburgate. There would be a strict Challenge 25 policy and under 12s must be accompanied and a register would be maintained. He pointed out that he had agreed to additional conditions and there would be a maximum of 30, one guest per member and music at background level only.
He explained that this would bring about community benefits and was a creative, low impact addition to Beccles. There would be a relaxed and inclusive setting. He had carefully considered the application and was aware of being community minded. He said he would operate in line with the licensing objectives and urged the committee to grant the licence.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked about the waste disposal at 43 Blyburgate and if there was a designated smoking area. The applicant explained there was a collection area with one large container and six other containers that also serviced the flats at the side of the premises. He confirmed that there wasn’t a designated smoking area.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked if the Norwich business was also his and what made him identify the need for this in Beccles. The applicant said it wasn’t his venue and you would have to go to three different venues in Norwich to find the facilities that he would offer in one place. The applicant had attended venues in Norwich and his son went there with his friends and they enjoyed it. He thought it would be a nice idea to have something like that in Beccles.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked if he had made any attempt to engage with the residents. The applicant said that last week one of the couples, who were here today, were looking into the venue so he invited them in and showed them round. The only thing not there was the retro arcade machine. He had not had an opportunity to speak to anyone else.
The applicant was asked why the windows were blacked out. The applicant explained that he needed maximum wall space in the premises and he didn’t need the window space. It was more valuable to have them boarded from inside so they could use them as walls. It would have restricted the space available if you couldn’t use that wall space.
Councillor Thompson asked about under 12s not being allowed in without being accompanied and what about under 18s. The applicant said under 18s would have to be accompanied in the games area but not the barber shop.
Councillor Hedgley noted that music would be kept at a low level. He asked about the noise associated with disposal of bottles and other waste. The applicant said it wasn’t a bar and didn’t envisage a lot of bottles but what bottles there were would be disposed of in daytime hours. Care would be taken to reduce the noise levels when disposing them.
The Senior Licensing Officer said the applicant was the Designated Officer and asked him to confirm how long he had held a licence. He said it was around 10 years. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed this was correct as the licence was issued in 2016. She confirmed that there were no complaints or objections at his previous licensed premises.
The Senior Licensing Officer queried the plan that had been submitted which showed tables and chairs out the front. She asked if these were just for alcohol consumption and not sales. The applicant confirmed that it was just for consumption. The photos from the Town Council suggested there was no room for tables and chairs. The applicant confirmed there was room for about three small tables and chairs.
The Licensing Officers confirmed that other licensed premises nearby included 42 Blyburgate (no alcohol licence), takeway at 62 Blyburgate (no alcohol licence). In addition there were the Beccles Wine Vaults but that was some distance away.
Councillor Hedgley asked for clarity if the tables and chairs were on the pavement. The applicant confirmed they were not on the pavement.
Objector One, Councillor Stubbings from Beccles Town Council asked the applicant to confirm if there was more than one exit. The applicant confirmed there was just one exit.
Objector Two asked how long 43 Blyburgate was licensed for and if it was used. The applicant said it wasn’t in force for very long. He explained they gave prosecco away and there was very little uptake so they didn’t renew the licence. He had a similar licence in Bungay which was also not renewed due to lack of uptake.
Councillor Stubbings explained that they had received a number of complaints/letters from residents so they had reviewed the application. They felt it was a bar rather than a barbers so they thought it had the wrong class of use. The Town Council felt they should be making a planning application for a change of use.
He said the Council had concerns about the access as there was only one narrow entrance which could become a bottleneck and asked if the fire service had been consulted. They also had concerns about ventilation in the building and where CO2 would be stored if there were kegs. They were also concerned about the distance to 43 Blyburgate and that the disposing of bottles would be a public nuisance. He explained that Blyburgate was a busy road with narrow pavements and they were concerned about the safe disposal of waste. The Council was also worried about the lack of smoking area and the public nuisance created by people standing on the pavement to smoke.
He asked if someone waiting for a haircut was classed as a customer and how could they determine who can and can’t consume alcohol. Was it a bar that offered an occasional haircut? There were concerns about noise as 30 people playing games would be noisy and disturb neighbours. The Council felt this was the wrong location for this type of venue.
Objector Three explained they lived next door to the premises. It was previously used as a barbers and was not successful unlike other barbers nearby which were. They felt this would be more of a drinking bar than a barbers. The licence application form had requested opening hours that were in line with pubs with recorded music throughout and plans to be open until 2am on New Year’s Eve – can’t see many will be wanting a haircut at that time. It was felt this was a bar and parties would be held there. This was a residential area and the premises will cause distress to the residents. Her property was physically attached and she could hear the radio playing next door. Her husband sleeps downstairs and all their sleep will be affected.
It was a busy, narrow road for vehicles and pedestrians that was close to other road junctions and there was no on street parking. Traffic disruption was inevitable. She said the premises must offer an area for smoking as otherwise she would be subjected to passive smoking if people smoked on the pavement, which would also pose a risk and threat to children walking home from school. The broken glass and noise from rubbish collection would be unacceptable in a residential area. They already had empty bottles and cans left on their windowsill and this would happen more frequently if this premises was licensed.
She was concerned about the narrow pavements and people spilling out of the premises would be a hazard. There was no mention of how many people would be allowed in the outside space or in the salon. She wanted her rights to be safeguarded. She had lived there for 35 years and wanted it refused due to grounds that it would cause a public nuisance.
Councillor Thompson reminded everyone that they could only take into account objections that occurred after something had happened and that the applicant may prevent these things from happening in the first place. The Objector said the applicant had asked for the license to be open until 2am on New year’s Eve and that was in the future.
Objector Four explained he was a resident of Blyburgate. He felt most points had already been covered so he wouldn’t repeat them but he wanted to give more context. All the houses on that part of the street faced directly onto the street and there were no front gardens. They already had issues with people walking home from town and felt there would be more noise and disruption on the street if this went ahead.
Councillor Thompson explained that the time to object was after something happened. The Objector asked what the point of the process was and on what grounds were they supposed to object.
Objector Two stated that she lived on Blyburgate and had privacy concerns about the CCTV that she felt was looking into her property. She agreed with the concerns voiced by the other objectors. She understood it was a games room. She had lived there for 10 years and seen various businesses at this property none of which had been particularly successful. There were three barbers and six hairdressers nearby and a licensed property at top of road. It was a busy thoroughfare with pedestrians and cars. She lived opposite the premises and the previous barbers used to walk onto her side of the street which was sunny and sit on her window sill. Her husband worked shifts so he was sleeping the other side of the window. Add in alcohol and she did not feel this would end well. She appreciated this was making assumptions but this was what they felt was likely to happen. The entrance was a bottleneck and it would be hard to evacuate now that the planters had been installed. The pavement outside would become the smoking area as well as the pavement outside her property. She would be grateful if the application was refused.
The Senior Licensing Officer summed up saying that the applicant’s previous licence was issued in February 2016 and was surrendered in December 2024. The fire service did not have any objections with regards to the plans that were shared with them. Environmental Health were also a statutory consultee and they had no objections. Regarding the comments about the width of the pavement, it is as it is now and the applicant will not be interfering with the width of the pavement.
The applicant responded to some of the questions and concerns. He said with regard to ventilation concerns there were two large A/C units on the premises. There would be no gas bottles and reiterated that it was not a bar but the alcohol licence would enhance the experience of the users of the games room. The removal of rubbish would take place in the hours of 9-5 and utmost care taken to prevent noise. The barbers would close at 6pm so there would be no overspill to the games room. New Year’s Eve was not a big issue as it’s one night per year. With reference to noise from a radio, this was when the builders were working and they use a ghettoblaster which was not typical of what would happen in the games room. The noise would be a low level and conversation wouldn’t be overshadowed by music. There would be no deliveries and any alcohol would be brought in by hand. He stressed again that it wasn’t a bar. With regards to CCTV concerns the cameras were designed to focus on the premises and nowhere else and he assured the resident that her privacy was intact. The CCTV would only cover the games room and barbers. He thought it might reassure people that he would be operating a booking system for those coming to play games. Once the slots were filled they cannot take more bookings. He said people were coming to play games, not to drink but the alcohol just enhanced the experience. He reiterated again that it was not a bar.
Councillor Hedgley asked the applicant what drinks would be offered. The applicant said bottles or cans of beer, wine and prosecco.
Councillor Stubbings summed up on behalf of many of the objectors. He explained that he ran a bar in Norwich and could not see how the applicant would deal with the bottles by hand. They were concerned the pavement would be blocked when people left. He felt 30 was a high number and asked how 30 people could play games simultaneously. If there were lower numbers they would be less likely to object. The applicant explained that the maximum number playing games was 21 but the booking system would be on a 50 minute turnaround. Therefore there was a 10 minute period where there could be an overlap of people leaving and coming and the 30 covered the overlap.
Objector Two explained she was not used to this kind of thing. She asked if the licence was granted and the premises became more of a bar would there be amendments to the licence and would there be a similar meeting. The Senior Licensing Officer explained that the licence wasn’t set in stone and a review can be called by anyone. It could be amended if complaints were received and it was proved that residents were being disturbed. She explained the objector could call for the licence to be ended or for the hours to be amended but they would need evidence. If this was the case then the objector was advised to make an application to the Council to review the licence.
The Sub-Committee then adjourned to make their decision.
DECISION NOTICE
Megalith Properties Limited (the applicant) has applied for a new premises licence at 49 Blyburgate, Beccles, Suffolk, NR34 9TQ, to permit the supply of alcohol on the premises.
This Sub-Committee has been held as eight relevant representations against the application had been received. The objectors’ main concerns were in relation to noise nuisance and potential anti-social behaviour. The representations detailed that as the premises is located in a residential area the outdoor seating area by the pavement may create noise nuisance, particularly at night. The representations also raised concerns of a licenced bar being operated at a barbers.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer confirmed that during the consultation period the Applicant and Suffolk Constabulary agreed conditions that should be included on any premises licence that may be granted. The Licensing Officer confirmed that there were no representations from Responsible Authorities. When questioned the Licensing Officer confirmed that the premises has not been a licenced premises in the past and that as far as they were aware there were no other licenced premises in the immediate area.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant who has held a personal licence for nearly ten years. The Applicant described their proposed premises as a unique community focused venue. Although predominantly a barbers it would have a games room and allow the sale of alcohol. The alcohol would be a secondary element to the premises, used only to enhance the customers’ overall experience. The Applicant drew the Sub Committee’s attention to the lack of representations from the Responsible Authorities. He had taken on board the objectors’ comments and was willing to make amendments to the operating schedule, having proposed restrictive conditions on the licence to mitigate their concerns. This included CCTV, fully trained staff and alcohol consumption restricted to only occur within the premises.
There were no representations from any Responsible Authorities. However, there were eight representations from local residents, who objected to the application. The objectors’ main concerns related to potential anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance in a residential area. One of the objectors raised concerns as to where customers would smoke/vape as there was no designated smoking area within the plan. The objector was worried that customers would smoke outside their home and be a nuisance to those using and living in the area. There were also concerns that there was only a single point of entry and exit and that this posed a safety risk. However the Fire and Emergency Services had not raised any concerns during the consultation period.
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 the objectors, has decided to grant the application subject to such conditions that are consistent with the operating schedule, however modified as follows:
Licensable Hours
Monday to Saturday 11:30 to 22:00
Sunday 11:30 to 21:30
Opening Hours
Monday to Friday 09:00 to 22:30
Saturday 08:00 to 22:30
Sunday 10:00 to 22:00
All sales of alcohol will only be to customers of the barbers and members of the games
room and their bonafide guests.
To become a member you must sign up at least 24 hours before attending the games room. You will not be allowed to purchase alcohol in the games room unless you are a member or their guest.
All guests must be signed in and show ID on entry and records will be kept for a rolling
period of 12 months.
All under 18 years old attending the games room must be accompanied by a parent/guardian/ responsible adult over the age of 18.
The games room will have a maximum capacity of 30 people and will operate through an online booking system.
A member may only have one guest at a time.
Music will only be played at a maximum level of background noise so customers and members don’t
have to raise their voices to talk.
There will be no gambling machines / slot machines allowed at the premises and a
maximum of 1 retro video games machine.
There must be the installation of a receptacle external to the premises for the disposal of cigarettes for customers and members.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the Applicant and 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 took great weight in making its decision upon the lack of responses from the Responsible Authorities, most notably the Police in relation to anti-social behaviour and the Environmental Protection team in relation to noise disturbance.
The Sub-Committee acknowledges the representations from the objectors in relation to anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance. Should the fears of the residents materialise they can apply to East Suffolk Council for the licence to be reviewed, on the supply of evidence.
The Sub-Committee notes that ‘public nuisance’ should be interpreted in its widest sense to include such issues as noise, light, odour, litter and anti-social behaviour. The Sub-Committee notes that the Applicant will take controlling measures to reduce the impact of public nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
The Sub-Committee notes that when exercising their licensing functions there is discretion as to whether to restrict trading hours of the premises. The Sub-Committee considered it appropriate to reduce the licensable and opening hours. This is because the premises is located in a predominantly residential area.
The Sub-Committee recommends that the Applicant applies a high standard of control to minimise the potential for any public nuisance that may arise from their operation of the premises. The licensing process can only seek to control those measures within the control of the licensee or certificate holder (and their staff/agents), and in the vicinity of the premises involved in licensable activities, for example on the pavement, in an outside seating area or smoking shelter. Licensing law is not a mechanism for the general control of anti-social behaviour by individuals, once they are away from such premises and beyond the direct control of the licence holder, nor is it the cure-all for community problems.
The Sub-Committee also considered the Council’s own guidance in relation to licensing objectives and notes that there is not currently a policy in place in relation to competition of similar premises. Therefore, the Sub-Committee should consider the impact of a new licence on its individual merit. As the Applicant has agreed to amend their licence as a result of concerns from local residents and agreed with Suffolk Constabulary to add conditions to the licence, the Sub-Committee is confident that the Applicant is capable of promoting the licensing objectives. The Applicant has held a personal licence for nearly ten years and in this time has received no complaints.
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: 29 May 2025