5
The Chair clarified that everyone had received the meeting papers and confirmed with the applicant that they wished to proceed with their application for variation to their premises licence.
The Licensing Officer was asked to summarise the report.
The Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that the Applicant was known to them as he held a private hire driver’s licence.
The Sub-Committee received ES/2587 which related to a variation to an existing premises licence for the Bruisyard Village Hall, Rendham Road Saxmundham Suffolk IP17 2DX
The reason for this hearing was that nine relevant representations against the application were received from other persons. One representation in support of the application was received.
The applicant agreed 3 conditions with the Food and Safety Team, these were:
- All temporary structures would have current sign off certificates.
- Wind speeds would be monitored throughout any event and appropriate measures will be taken in the event of wind speeds approaching maximum permitted levels.
- The event organiser must ensure that all food outlets were registered with a local authority.
The Environmental Protection Team had submitted an objection which was later withdrawn following the acceptance of a Noise Management Plan from the applicant.
There were no objections from any of the other Responsible Authorities. As the representations were not withdrawn, the hearing was still required. The Sub-Committee was asked to consider the report alongside:
- 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
If the Sub-Committee had reason to depart from these it was asked to give full reasons for doing so.
The Senior Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that they could determine the application by:
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 - Or by rejecting the application.
Depending on the decision of the Sub-Committee, both the applicant and the other parties that had made representations had rights of appeal to the Magistrates Court. When announcing its decision, the Sub-Committee was asked to state its reasons
The Chair invited questions to the Licensing Officer.
The Solicitor asked the Licensing Officer if they had received any complaints about the premises and they confirmed they had not.
The Chair invited the Applicant to make their representation.
The Applicant told the Sub-Committee that the main reason for submitting the licence variation was to increase the fundraising opportunities by having outside events. Currently activities could only happen inside the village hall and not outside. He confirmed to the Sub-Committee that they had not received any complaints, neither had Environmental Protection or the Police. Whilst Bruisyard Hotel had received complaints, there had been no noise complaints relating to the Village Hall.
The Chair invited questions to the Applicant.
Councillor Hedgley shared the map with the applicant for him to point out where the patio area was and where the speakers would be. This was then shared with the rest of the panel.
Councillor Folley asked the Applicant about the variation for 3 hours in the morning, and what events they were planning to put on.
The Applicant confirmed that events wouldn’t be in the morning, the earlier times was to allow for set up only, music was planned in the evenings.
The Licensing Officer asked to clarify a point, the applicant wished to open the outside area for consumption, however consumption was already allowed and therefore not a licensable activity. The applicant had provided a plan showing where the consumption would take place.
Councillor Hedgley asked again about the earlier requested time, and the Applicant confirmed it was just for the setup of events.
The Applicant continued that their current licence was valid until 10.30pm, this amounted to a 3 hour extension of those hours. They would not have any more than a 3 hour stint of music, with a 9pm cut off, regardless of what time they started outside.
Councillor Hedgley asked Licensing to clarify exactly what was being asked for. The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that what was being asked for was the outside areas; the licensable activities within the inside area of the village hall were already covered by the existing licence.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that under de-regulation they were allowed to have live and regulated music for the times of On-Sales. It currently started at 12pm, they assumed that the Applicant was applying to be allowed to take them outside.
Councillor Hedgley said they did not need a licence for performance of plays outside, or showing of films outside and it was confirmed by the Licensing Team that was correct.
Councillor Thompson queried the number of people allowed at events and the Solicitor said that anything more than 500 had to have a licence applied for.
The Chair asked the applicant to clarify that the events held would not be for more than 500 people and he confirmed that was correct, there wasn’t the room to hold events of that size.
The Chair invited the first Objector to make their representation.
The first objector referred to a satellite photo, which showed the location of the hall and the properties impacted. He said that 54 people lived within 100 m of the village hall and would be affected. He felt that the noise management plan submitted was unworkable, the properties were too close by, there was no effective sound screening, and the residents affected would have no control over the level of noise. With the Noise Management Plan, the members of the village hall committee would decide what an acceptable sound level was. This did not meet the requirements of neighbours living close by. He said that an acceptable noise level for a quiet residential area between 7 and 10pm was 40 DBA and in their view, amplified music outside the village hall could not be kept within those levels – it would cause a statutory nuisance under the Noise Prevention Act 1990 – affecting the lives and wellbeing of many residents.
He told the Sub-Committee that he was involved in the fundraising of the village hall (approximately £300k). It was 70% funded from big lottery community buildings funding. Grants were awarded on the understanding that it was a community facility for the benefit of local and neighbouring residents and to address their social needs. He felt that the licence variation appeared for it to become much more of a party/music venue – for up to 200/250 people. It would not benefit the residents; it would cause division and harm.
He told the Sub-Committee that prior to developing the hall an independently audited survey was carried out by the Big Lottery grants officer to establish support and identify need. The response rate was over 90%, with 52% being in favour of the village hall being built, but only if 2 strict conditions were met. Firstly, it must not become a public nuisance, there was a lot of concern about drunkenness and noise, and secondly, it must be financially self-sustainable. He told the Sub-Committee that the financial stability condition was met up to the end of his involvement with the village hall, which ended late 2022. He was not sure of the financial position since then as no further accounts had been published. If a licence variation was granted, he felt the first condition would be broken.
He told the Sub-Committee that the survey referenced by the applicant was carried out in 2023 – this was to see if there was support for extending the on sales licence to include off sales and included questions about the types of events to be held in the hall. Tagged on to the survey were some questions on amplified music outside of the village hall. It assumed there would be amplified music outside and asked residents to give opinions on the frequency and timings. He said the questions were leading, to gain a positive response. The response rate from households was low, at less than 50% and it had not been independently audited.
He told the Sub-Committee that when he questioned many people in the village about why they did not reply, they responded that there was no way in the survey to say they did not want amplified music, so they did not reply and the response was low. In his view it was not a democratic process, it assumed if they did not respond, they were happy with what was proposed.
He concluded that Bruisyard was a quiet rural village and it shouldn’t be ruined.
The second objector confirmed that he was representing both himself and residents in the immediate vicinity of the village hall, and the statements he read out were on behalf of them too. He told the Sub-Committee that these objections were made on the grounds that to permit the variation to the licence without meaningful limitations and controls would mean a statutory nuisance, contrary to the Environmental Protection legislation. He said that the application for a licence variation was submitted with no consultation with residents, particularly Bruisyard street, who would be most impacted.
He told the Sub-Committee that since the hall opened in 2010, a range of activities had taken place in it, and they had been well supported from Bruisyard and the surrounding villages, with one significant exception. He told the Sub Committee that the existing licence operated effectively balancing the users of the village hall and those village residents who might be impacted. He noted that when the licence was granted, it was not contemplated that it would now become similar to a public house or music venue. In the extensive consultation at the time, amplified and external music were highlighted as specific concerns. A prohibition was stipulated for outside music and a sound limiter was mandated for internal events as a planning consent condition.
He referred to the motorcycle event, which was the type of activity which the present applicant sought to permit. At this event there was a decision by the applicant to permit external amplified music. This led to complaints to Suffolk Police, the licensing authority and the parish council village hall committee as well as personal threats and intimidation directed to villagers who raised concern.
He told the Committee that more recently one of the objectors had returned home after 11pm on a Saturday and the music from inside the village hall could be heard from his cottage, he said this could only have happened if the sound limiter was not working or disconnected.
He said that the licence variation was only brought to the attention of villagers in September 2025. There was no publication on parish council or village hall websites and no public consultation, particularly with those likely to be impacted.
He said there was no support or demand for the licence variation within the village. The village could not take up the events capacity that the proposed licence variation could facilitate. The aim appeared to be to change the village hall from a community venue to benefit local residents to a commercially focused party and music venue. This would be to the detriment of the village and they would not have been successful with lottery funding if this was the case at the time. It was evident that there would be demand from outside of the village as other village halls don’t allow outside amplified music.
To conclude he said the licence variation would cause a statutory nuisance to the people it was supposed to benefit. It would be in contravention of the licence, planning consent, and funding stipulations which enabled it to operate. The application was wrong, it was not consulted on, and it was not supported by many for whom the village hall was established.
He said it would be inconsistent to permit external amplified music when Bruisyard country estate events venue nearby has several constraints. Villagers would find themselves between two general hire venues. He said on a personal note, he had cause to make formal complaints to Environment Protection about Bruisyard Estate. He told the Sub-Committee the application should be rejected; there should be a meaningful justification and appropriate consultation.
The Chair confirmed with Licensing that they had not received any complaints. There had been no complaints submitted to Licensing regarding Bruisyard Village Hall since it had been licensed and the Chair requested that this was noted in the minutes.
The Chair invited questions to the objectors.
Councillor Hedgley was sympathetic with the noise, he felt there was a divide within the village and asked the objectors if they were not keen on what the Parish Hall Committee was doing, had they attempted to get involved and influence the decisions.
The first objector stated he was a member of the Village Hall Committee, along with several others. He found it to be an unpleasant situation, and their lives were made difficult. He questioned why they would give up their time voluntarily when the meetings were appalling. He resigned, along with 7 others, in November 2022.
The Chair asked whether the committee was complete, with the correct amount of people on it, a constitution, and fulfilled its obligations.
The applicant confirmed that they no longer have a constitution as it was under full control of parish council, so no constitution was required. This happened whilst the objector was on the Committee. He added if they weren’t happy with anyone on the Committee, they had the collective power to take over the control of the Committee and remove people from the Committee. They chose not to do that, and one by one left. He said if they had a problem with the Committee, they had the power to change it and they didn’t.
The Chair confirmed that they were still taking questions from the Members and would return to the applicant shortly.
Councillor Hedgley noted that the Parish Council oversaw the Parish Hall. He wondered if anyone would put their name forward to be a Parish Councillor at election time, or if it would continue as it was. He said he could see there was no interaction, no one was working together.
The Objector said that due to the experience they had received, a number resigned from the Parish Council at the same time, it was not worth their while taking part in it.
Responding to the Applicant, the Objector said the decision to become a formal sub-committee of the parish council was done after he and others left the village hall committee. Before that it was a registered charity. They realised that the revenue for the village hall was above the limit set by HMRC. Therefore it was recommended that it should be a CIO (charitable incorporated organisation), completely separate from the parish council. This was agreed at the village hall meeting. After he left, that decision was overturned by the applicant and the other committee village members. They decided they would not be a CIC, just a sub-committee.
Councillor Hedgley asked why they felt the noise management plan was unworkable. The Objector replied that the acceptable noise level was based on the World Health Organisation and Environmental Protection standard (Noise Protection Act 1990). The level was 40 DBA. The closeness of properties in Bruisyard Street and Rendham Road meant it would be possible to get any amplified music to an acceptable level in the evening.
In response to whether they had any noise pollution tests carried out, he said they were simple to do, you could use an app to measure it. He added that he didn’t realise there was a recent noise problem, had he been aware he could have measured it. If the objector could hear it from his cottage, it must have been more than 40 DBA.
Councillor Thompson noted that Environmental Protection did not accept the phone app as a way of measuring the noise pollution.
Councillor Hedgley said he had listened to everything that was being said and hadn’t made his mind up. He noted if the licence was granted and there was a problem, it could come back to the Licensing Committee for a review. The Licensing Officer confirmed that whatever was or wasn’t granted wasn’t set in stone. If there was evidence of disturbance, there could be a licence review.
The Objector said they were aware of that, but they felt that the case should be rejected. The second objector wished to refer to complaints regarding Bruisyard Estate and the effectiveness of the controls, based on their experience. The Chair said this wasn’t relevant to the case.
The Objector was aware of the limited resources in the Environmental Protection Team and said they needed to check the sound limiter which they believed was disconnected or not working.
Councillor Hedgley confirmed that Environmental Protection could bring equipment to gardens and monitor, there was a path to follow if they chose to accept the variation.
The Chair stated that the Environmental Team at East Suffolk Council were fantastic, they had to receive a complaint to be able to follow one up.
The Solicitor clarified the proceedings for the remainder of the hearing for the Chair.
There were no question for the Objectors from the Licensing team.
The Applicant said that the level of noise monitored has been discussed when he put together the noise management plan, he spoke to Environmental Protection who told him it was difficult to put a limit on outside music due to outside conditions. They could only go by what was reported on the day and monitor it then.
The Chair confirmed that at this point it was questions to the objectors.
The Senior Licensing Officer confirmed that Licensing would not be involved in setting noise limitations it would be Environmental Protection.
The Solicitor asked for more detail on the event that occurred in 2022. The first objector said he was on the village hall committee at the time, the applicant was the DPS. There was a motorbike show in August 2022. The applicant allowed the band to play outside, it was very loud, and the objector received numerous phone calls asking if they were aware there was excessive noise and why was there a rock band outside. One of the phone calls worried him, a neighbouring village resident threatened to act on it themselves if it was not dealt with. The Objector went to the village hall and asked the band to go inside the hall, and they refused and said they would play outside or not at all. As the Objector was the one who asked them to stop, he received numerous abusive emails and 2 death threats. He reported it to Suffolk police, and a police record exists.
The solicitor had no further questions
The applicant confirmed to Councillor Hedgley that he lived close to the Village Hall.
The Chair invited everyone to sum up
The Senior Licensing Officer said there had been confusion as to what was being applied for, she said that on-sales at the premises was currently 12 noon to 22:30, permitting live and recording music at those times.
The application sought to extend them to 9am, they were currently not permitted from 9am to 12 noon as on-sales were not permitted then.
The applicant confirmed that music was not required from 9am to 12noon.
The Senior Licensing Officer said the next bit of the application was to add the patio area to the licence plan and if this was granted that would allow alcohol sales on the patio area between 12noon and 22:30 as it would become part of the licence. If the patio was not added to the licence area, then music would be permitted under the work place exemption, as it was the outside area.
The Senior Licensing Officer said Environmental Protection had been mentioned on several occasions. She noted that the Environmental Protection withdrew their application having received an acceptable Noise Management Plan, that was a fact. The other fact was that there were village halls that had music outside in beer gardens, recreation grounds etc, they were permitted under de-regulation.
The Senior Licensing Officer said that the objector referred to the applicant as the DPS. She confirmed that there had never been an individual DPS according to their records, it had always been the Bruisyard Parish Hall Village Hall Committee (collectively).
The Chair invited the Applicant to sum up. He said the main problem was the motorbike event, there were lots of motorbikes there, but the band was not promoted or planned. They were just a group that played together at different times, they had tried to set up the music in the hall, but no matter what the level it cut off, so they moved outside to the patio area, they had only played one song when objector came in to say it couldn’t happen. Several people said he had been circling the village waiting for something to happen, several people said he was shouting to the band and threatening to call the police. The Objector was told the sound limiter was not working correctly and he said he didn’t care. The applicant said the Objector was the only one on the village hall committee who had interfered with the limiter. He had stated in an email that he adjusted it as a tractor went past and set it off. The applicant said that was to cause problems to any inside music. The Applicant said he had spoken to Environmental Protection about the Noise Management Plan. He didn’t agree it was unworkable; the objectors were not aware of the resources he had. He had lots of family members that could work on the site and make sure it was all kept safe.
The applicant said that the reason the villagers did not put in representations was that they thought they didn’t need to as the survey was already done. If he had to reapply, there were a number of villagers who had said they would support it.
The applicant said the village hall was built for use by villagers; in the whole time it had been operating the main people using the hall were from outside of the village. He told the Sub-Committee that they were in a situation, where if it was only permitted for the villagers to use it, they would have to look for other ways to raise funds to ensure it kept running. He felt he had put everything in place to minimise disruption to anyone.
The Chair asked when the sound limiter was last calibrated? The Applicant said it hadn’t ever been calibrated, and it had never been said that it needed to be. The Objector responded that he was on the committee at the time when it was calibrated by Environmental Protection. This was after it was adjusted to a level that meant it wasn’t set off by passing tractors. In October 2022 he found it had been disconnected. He had no idea whether it had been reconnected since that time.
The Chair asked if there was any evidence/photographs of this sound limiter. It was confirmed that they did not have.
The Senior Licensing Officer asked whether Environmental Protection had visited to look at the device as part of the noise management plan. The Applicant said they hadn’t been out for that, but they had previously been to the hall to inspect. The Chair assumed it would be in tact as Environmental Protection had inspected. – no, they haven’t been out for that, he has been in the hall prior though to see it and inspected.
The Chair invited the Objectors to sum up. They told the Sub-Committee that they had made their case, they were representing a large majority of the village residents.
The Sub-Committee adjourned for 1 hour to make their decision.
DECISION NOTICE
Bruisyard Village Hall and Parish Council Committee (the Applicant) has applied for a variation to an existing premises licence at Bruisyard Village Hall, Rendham Road Bruisyard Saxmundham Suffolk IP17 2DX. The application seeks to update the plan for the premises to include the outside patio area and to extend Plays, Films, Live and Recorded Music, Dance and anything of a similar description to live and recorded music outdoors.
This Sub-Committee has been held as nine representations against the application had been received from other persons. There was one representation received in support of the application. A representation was received against the application from a Responsible Authority however this was subsequently withdrawn after a Noise Management Plan was submitted and approved.
The objections were made on the grounds of public nuisance. The consensus of the objections was that due to Bruisyard Village Hall being located in a residential area, outside music would cause noise pollution and disturbance to nearby residents.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer declared that the representative of the Applicant was known to the Licensing Team as he holds a Private Hire Driver Licence within the District.
Within the Licensing Officer’s report, it was summarised that the premises is already permitted to have live and recorded music indoors 12 noon to 22:30. The application is to extend those times to 09:00 indoors, and outdoors for live music only. The application seeks to add the patio area as a licensed area and if granted would mean that live and recorded music could take place in this area under deregulation during the times permitted for ON sales of alcohol. When questioned the Licensing Officer confirmed that they had not received any complaints about the premises.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant who explained that he made the application so that they could continue to raise funds for the village hall. The Applicant wanted to open the premises outside area so that people may book the area for outdoor events and activities. The Sub-Committee requested clarity from the Applicant as to where the patio was located on the plan as well as where the speakers would be located if there was an event. The Licensing Officer confirmed that consumption is not a licensable activity so patrons can already sit in the outdoors area and consume alcohol.
The Sub-Committee then heard from an objector who referred to the satellite photo which showed all the properties nearby to the premises and who would be affected by noise from the village hall. The Objector stated that they felt the Noise Management Plan was ineffective as it would be near impossible for amplified music to be reduced to the appropriate level. The Noise Management Plan made it so that a sound limiter was installed within the hall. A survey was conducted in the village before the hall was constructed, the conditions of the building was that they did not want the hall to become a public nuisance. The consensus of those who reside in Bruisyard is that they are not supportive of the variation and do not want loud amplified music. There is no meaningful demand for the hall to host outdoor events.
The objectors referred to an event that occurred in August 2022. There was a band that was playing outside the premises on the patio. Numerous phone calls were received by the Parish Council in relation to the excessive noise at the village hall. This incident was never reported to the licensing team.
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 objectors has decided to refuse the variation application.
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 acknowledge the representation from the objectors whose key concern was that outdoor music would cause noise disturbance. Pursuant to 14.4 of the Licensing Act 2003 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’s attention in the hearing was drawn to the Live Music Act 2012 and the Legislative Reform (entertainment Licensing) Order 2014. This legislation deregulates certain licensable activities. The Sub-Committee note that the current premises licence permits ON sales of alcohol from 12noon to 22:30 every day. Thus, meaning that under deregulation, the premises is permitted to have live music 12noon to 22:30 every day indoors. A workplace exemption permits premises to have live music outdoors in a workplace. The patio and outside area of the Bruisyard Village Hall is currently used for the consumption of alcohol and is therefore deemed to be a workplace.
The Sub-Committee would also like to note that no licence is required for Plays and Films between 8am and 11pm on any day as long as the audience does not exceed 500 persons. This applies to both indoor and outdoors.
The Sub-Committee has decided to refuse the application as it was not satisfied that there was an overwhelming need to extend the licensable area to the patio.
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: 14 November 2025