5
The Premises Licence Holder did not attend for the hearing. The Licensing Officer confirmed to the Chair that the Hearing Notice was sent out on 19 December 2025 to the Premises Licence Holder. It was also sent to all other representatives. The Licensing Officer had not received a response from the Premises Licence Holder. The Licensing Enforcement Officer had tried to reach the Premises Licence Holder by telephone that morning. They had not received a response but had left a message and asked for an urgent call back. They had not heard anything back from the Premises Licence Holder.
Mr Corkett of Suffolk Constabulary said that their experience was that there had been continuous non-cooperation from the Premises Licence Holder with any of the responsible authorities, the non-attendance at the hearing demonstrated this again. They said that they would be quite happy to go ahead with the Licensing Sub-Committee in the absence of the Premises Licence Holder and urged the panel to do the same.
The Sub-Committee was told that the Premises Licence Holder was aware of the hearing process as they had submitted a written response.
The Sub-Committee agreed to continue with the hearing in the Premises Licence Holder’s absence.
The Legal Advisor outlined the process that would be followed and that there would be an application from the Suffolk Constabulary to consider some of the Hearing in closed session.
Councillor Folley asked whether they could go into closed session for the entire Sub-Committee. The Licensing Manager and Housing Lead Lawyer advised that it would be for the minimum period necessary to ensure that any requirements were privacy were maintained.
It was confirmed that everyone had received all papers and that Suffolk Constabulary wished to proceed with the application.
The Licensing Officer summarised the written report ES-2643. The Sub-Committee was told that an application was made for the review of the premises licence for The Carousel, 108 High Street, Lowestoft, NR32 1XW. The review had been called by Suffolk Constabulary under the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, following numerous incidents and reports concerning assault, drug supply and noise disturbance. Despite a previous warning letter from the Suffolk Constabulary in January 2024 regarding several issues, and numerous visits from the Suffolk Constabulary Licensing Enforcement Officer and Environmental Protection Team, further complaints had been received. This application for review was subject to a 28 day consultation period during which time 3 representations in support of the review were received from responsible authorities. A representation was also received from the Premises Licence Holder who was also the Designated Premises Supervisor.
The Licensing Sub-Committee Members had been supplied with a copy of the application and the representations received. The Premises Licence Holder had received a copy of the application and representations from responsible authorities. The police submitted a further document in support of their application on 23 December 2025 which had been sent to the Sub-Committee members and the Premises Licence Holder. On 7 January 2026 the police sent further sensitive documents which has been sent to the Sub-Committee Members and the Legal Advisor only.
The Licensing Officer said that Suffolk Constabulary would be making an application for the public and persons present to be excluded from part of the hearing where information that they did not wish to be placed in the public domain was to be discussed. If any such application was made, the Sub-Committee would need to consider and determine the application pursuant to regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.
The report identified a number of other points for the Sub-Committee to consider. These were 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 Sub-Committee was asked to determine this application and consider the following options.
1. modify the conditions of the licence.
2. exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence.
3. remove the Designated Premises Supervisor.
4. suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months.
5. revoke the licence.
6. do nothing with the licence.
Depending on the decision of the Sub-Committee, the applicant and/or responsible authority and interested parties that have made representations have rights of appeal to the Magistrates Court. Under Section 52 (11) of the Licensing Act, the Sub-committee’s decision does not take effect until the end of the period given for appealing against the decision, in this case 21 days.
There were no questions for the Licensing Officer.
The Chair invited the applicant to present their case including calling any witnesses.
The applicant stated that the first thing they were going to do was to apply for an ex parte hearing to exclude the public whilst they discussed sensitive police information regarding the licence holder and occurrences at the venue.
The Licensing Manager and Housing Lead Lawyer clarified that the reason for this was that under Regulation 14.2 the public interest in excluding the public from this part of the hearing outweighed the public interest in them taking part and it was for the minimum period necessary to protect confidential/sensitive information.
He noted that once the YouTube was shut down it could not be re-opened. However, the meeting room was still open to the public. It was not a legal requirement for the meeting to be broadcast on YouTube, but something that the Council chose to do.
On the proposition of Councillor Folley, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following part of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
The meeting entered into closed session at 10.46am.
The meeting returned to public session at 10.59am.
The Chair invited Mr Corkett to make his representation.
He told the Sub-Committee that the review was called as there were several issues regarding the running of The Carousel. He said it was unusual to have several responsible authorities joining in and it showed the level of concern regarding the way the venue was being run.
Ms Godbold took over at the end of 2023; he had previous knowledge of her as she had a brief tenure at the Volunteer.
On Boxing day 2023 there was a serious insult, a known violent individual assaulted a male, and the victim was still having treatment for brain injuries. Mr Corkett said the individual was well known and should not be allowed to have a drink, Ms Goldbold was willing to let him drink. She denied knowing he was violent, he said this was nonsense as she knew the people and her customers.
At that time Ms Godbold was spoken to by the Police about this incident and the drug conditions and breach of licensing hours. He added that there were also lots of issues regarding noise and the Sub-Committee would hear from Environmental Protection.
Mr Corkett said the situation all came to a head this year, there was a vulnerable family living in the flat above with school age children. There was continuous disturbance for the children with smoking, swearing and music playing to 3.00am and beyond. The tenant had made a representation which formed part of the report. Mr Corkett said the tenant would have attended the Sub-Committee, but they were not well. He said he had tried to have a meeting with Ms Godbold, but each time she did not attend, and they would end up speaking to other staff.
Eventually in October 25 he had a meeting with Ms Godbold, where he raised the issues regarding noise and breaching the licence conditions. She claimed that she was cleaning and this was her way of dealing with the cleaning issues to play loud music.
This was contradicted by one instance when police officers attended at 3.00am. They found people in the venue and evidence of drinking. Some people were hidden in a rear room. When confronted they all said they were helping with cleaning and cleaning pipes. Accounts from officers show that there was no cleaning going on. Mr Corkett said that Ms Godbold used this excuse throughout that she cleans after hours. He said it was not necessary; it was not a big venue. She also claimed they were security officers working for her, he said this was not the case, they were not SIA staff, there was not any need on a Wednesday evening.
He said there was evidence of lock ins, and he made Ms Godbold aware of this, she was told to stop and wear headphones. He said this didn’t happen and this was backed up by police officers and the upstairs tenant. The licence was being breached on a regular basis despite warnings given to stop.
Mr Corkett said they could not contact Ms Godbold and nor could Environmental Protection. She did not answer the phone, they left messages and emails and she did not reply. He said this was not satisfactory for a Licensing Holder who was running a high priority premises.
Ms Godbold was the Designated Premises Supervisor, and she should be the first person they speak to if there was an issue. The situation was entirely unsatisfactory.
He said that he had started the application review by saying that certain conditions needed to be imposed:
• Ending all licensed activity at 2300 hrs Mon-Sat and 2230 on Sundays
• No live or recorded music after 21:00
• No curtains of window coverings are to be allowed on outside windows or doors located in the licensed area of the venue so that the view into the venue is not obscured in any way once the venue closes for activity. This will include the removal of all existing obstructions such as stickers, advertising or other notices other than those required by other regulations such as fire exit signage. This will help deter lock-ins.
• A three-month suspension of the licence. This will serve the purpose of focussing the mind of the licence holder on what is required under the act and to serve as a deterrent to other venues that may be inclined to act in the same way
• The removal of Ms Godbold as the Designated Premises Supervisor. Ms Godbold is clearly unsuited to the role and has zero regard for her responsibilities under the act and zero regard for the wellbeing and mental health of those forced to suffer the consequences of her activities.
• CCTV coverage (as detailed on the existing licence) to be extended to cover ALL areas of the bar and any other room used for licensed activity both upstairs, downstairs and the rear outside deck area.
• However, he told the Sub-Committee that they would now like to revise this for them to consider revocation. He said the Designated Premises Supervisor could not be bothered to turn up to her own hearing, that presented to them and hopefully to the panel the mindset of her, she could not be bothered, there was no cooperation, and she would continue unless the licence was revoked.
He concluded that if they were not minded doing that, then they should continue with a 3 month suspension.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Corkett.
Councillor Folley asked having had previous dealings with licence holder. Did he believe if conditions were imposed such as CCTV, curtains open, trained staff etc, would they abide. Mr Corkett said that normally licensees absolutely comply or shut the premises and move on. He said in this case, the Licence Holder had ignored advice. He believed there would be non-compliance.
There were no further questions to the police.
The Chair invited the representation from Environmental Protection.
The Environmental Protection Officer said there had been a history of involvement, they became aware last year that there were issues with noise from the premises. The tenant was being disturbed by loud music and sound. It was identified to them that the premises opened beyond their licensed hours, with music into early hours of morning. He asked the complainant to keep a record and installed noise recording equipment. It was in place for 2 weeks and during that time there were a number of recordings made containing loud music and karaoke which could be heard clearly from the pub ceiling into their floor. He noted one time there was a party with a DJ which resulted in extremely loud recordings. The equipment was vibrating in time with the music, bass penetrating etc. He attended a meeting with East Suffolk Council and the Police where they discussed complaint and handed Ms Godbold their position in a letter. This outlined the noise complaints and that the noise levels recorded could be a statutory nuisance, resulting in the possibility of a noise abatement notice being served if it continued. At that meeting Ms Godbold said the DJ would be coming back to the same party with their own equipment, they advised this should not go ahead as that would be a statutory nuisance.
They made the decision to serve the abatement notice on likelihood that there would be a disturbance, this was served along with the right of appeal. There was no response from the Licence Premises Holder and they continued to receive complaints of excessive noise. The noise recording equipment was installed again and there was evidence of the abatement notice being breached. On 9 December they wrote to say it had been breached and that they would be referred to the legal team. They made the Licence Holder aware that they had the power to confiscate equipment and there was the potential for prosecution in magistrates court for fine and other sanctions, they received no further response from the Premises Licence Holder.
He said that he understood the tenant had been rehoused.
He concluded by saying that he didn’t consider the current conditions on the premises licence were adequate. He suggested putting forward the following condition.
Volume of live or amplified music will be suitably adjusted as necessary to not cause nuisance to any occupiers of residential premises/property.
He said that would give a degree of protection to anyone living in residential premises.
The Chair invited questions.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked if that would mean it applied to any licensee in the future. The Environmental Protection Officer confirmed it would be more geared to all surrounding properties. Councillor Smith-Lyte noted that the tenant had been rehoused and said that was good news.
Councillor Fisher confirmed with the Environment Protection Officer that he served a letter to Ms Godbold in person at a meeting but he hadn’t been able to speak to her at any other time.
The Licensing Manager and Housing Lead Lawyer noted the family had moved out but said that the flat could be used for temporary accommodation in the future. Environmental Protection confirmed that wouldn’t change the condition request as it would protect any future occupants.
The Chair invited the representative from Suffolk County Council Public Health to make their representation. He expressed to the Sub-Committee the impact of sleep disturbance and noise pollution on someone’s health; particularly on children and how it could impact cognitive and behavioural health. This was explained fully in their representation included as part of the report.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the East Suffolk Council Licensing Enforcement Officer.
He outlined the details of the emails that he had received from the tenant living above the premises where there had been ongoing continuous late night disturbance. He said that the tenant was 20 weeks pregnant and this had impacted their health. He added that the Premises Licence Holder had a child of school age and when the impact on the tenants above was pointed out to them, she didn’t take it on board.
The Licensing Manager and Housing Lead Lawyer said given the history of the matter did he believe that the Licence Holder was capable of complying with the conditions and working with responsible authorities. The Licensing Enforcement Officer said he did not. He had difficulty getting hold of the License Holder, he phoned and texted and eventually went to her home address. She had moved and not made the Council aware. He only managed to get a response after serving a second letter.
The Chair invited all parties to sum up.
Mr Corkett said that there had been a suggested condition to add to the licence to keep the noise to a reasonable level. If the licence survived that would be a reasonable thing to do but he would not expect that the Licence Holder would comply with it. It would protect future tenants but that was not relevant.
He said that the Licence Holder was a selfish, uncaring individual, that was evidenced today that she could not be bothered to turn up to her own hearing, he concluded that should set in the Councillors’ minds that revocation was the only thing to consider in this case.
The Licensing Officer added that the licensing team had not been able to contact Ms Godbold either and that moving address and not informing them was an offence under the Licensing Act as she was the Designated Premises Supervisor.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision.
Decision Notice
Suffolk Constabulary made a request for a review of the premises licence for the Carousel, 108 High Street, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR32 1XW, under Section 51 of the Licensing Act.
This Sub-Committee has been held following the application of Suffolk Constabulary on the grounds of the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Since Ms Godbold became the licence holder back in December 2023 there have been numerous reports of incidents concerning assault, drug supply and noise disturbance. Despite a previous warning letter from Suffolk Constabulary in January 2024 regarding several issues, numerous visits from Suffolk Constabulary, Licensing Enforcement Officer and Environmental Protection Team, further complaints have been received.
The hearing was held in the absence of the licence holder who had been notified of the hearing and attempts were made to contact her. The Sub-Committee were satisfied that she was aware of the hearing, given that she had made representations which were part of the report and documents.
Suffolk Constabulary were joined in making representations by the following responsible authorities, East Suffolk Council Environmental Protection, East Suffolk Council Licensing Enforcement Team and Suffolk County Council Public Health.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Licensing Officer, who provided a brief summary of the report.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the representative from the police, who indicated that they were now seeking revocation of the licence as there was evidence of the premises being used for the supply of drugs. In addition, the licence conditions were being breached due to the premises being used for licensable activities outside of the licensed hours. On one occasion the police attended at 3am and there were a number of people present, and some people appeared to be hiding, loud music was playing and there were beer bottles scattered around. The licence holder claimed that these people were assisting with cleaning. The police assert this was not the case and instead the premises was being used for a lock in.
The police also indicated that there was a serious assault at the premises shortly after the licence holder was in post, this person was a well-known individual and the licence holder would have been aware this person was not a suitable person to be in their premises. In addition, the police indicated that the licence holder used to manage another premises in Lowestoft and the police had difficulty with her there.
Having previously been of the view that action short of revocation would be sufficient to promote the licensing objectives, the Police now believe that the only suitable action would be revocation due to the licence holder’s complete failure to engage and change her behaviour.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Environmental Protection Officer who had received complaints regarding noise from the premises. The Environmental Protection Officer investigated and recordings were made. The licence holder was informed at a meeting on 23 October 2025 that the noise could be a statutory nuisance, especially the noise from a particular DJ with their equipment. However, this advice was ignored and on 31 October 2025 a noise abatement notice was issued due to the noise coming from the premises. This notice has been ignored, and the matter has been passed on to the Council’s legal team for further action. Environmental Protection indicated that if the Sub-Committee was minded not to revoke, a condition could be imposed as follows: the volume of live or amplified music will be suitably adjusted as necessary to not cause nuisance to any occupiers of residential premises. However, upon questioning, the Environmental Protection Officer indicated that he did not believe that the licence holder would comply with the condition.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Suffolk County Council Public Health representative who outlined the impact that noise disturbance would have on public health, in particular young children.
Finally, the Sub-Committee heard from East Suffolk Council’s Licensing Enforcement Officer who said that he had attempted to contact the licence holder on numerous occasions including visiting the home address on her licence, only to be informed that she had moved. The Licensing Officer said that failing to notify the licensing authority of a change of address was an offence in itself and another example of the licence holder’s failure to cooperate with responsible authorities. Both the police and the Licensing Enforcement Officer said that the licence holder was rarely available to deal with any issues and concerns, when in reality a responsible licence holder should always be willing to engage with responsible authorities.
The decision of the Sub-Committee
The Sub-Committee, having considered the application, the Licensing Officer’s report and the representations from the police, environmental health, public health and the licensing enforcement officer have decided to revoke the premises licence in accordance with Section 52 4(e) of the Licensing Act 2003.
Reasons for decision
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of the police, environmental health, public health and the licensing enforcement officer. 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.
There are a number of reasons for the revocation.
1. There is evidence of the premises being used for the supply of drugs. This is contrary to the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder. Paragraph 11.27 of the statutory guidance indicates that the use of criminal activity involving the sale and distribution of drugs should be taken seriously. Paragraph 11.28 of the statutory guidance indicates that licensing authorities should seriously consider revocation, even in the first instance, when the premises is being used for such activities. The Sub-Committee therefore considers that the licence should be revoked due to the failure to promote the licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder.
2. The premises is causing a public nuisance due to the noise emanating from the premises. This has shown that the licence holder is incapable of promoting the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. The Sub-Committee have heard compelling evidence from the Environmental Protection Officer that they have warned the licence holder of the impact that their behaviour and the noise has had on neighbouring residents and have even served an abatement notice, but this has had no effect on mitigating the nuisance. This leads the sub-committee in the view that the licence holder is not capable of promoting the licensing objectives and the licence should be revoked.
3. The licence holder is incapable of complying with their licence conditions. There is evidence from the police and from neighbouring residents that the premises is being used for licensed activities outside of licensable hours. There have been numerous attempts to engage with the licence holder from responsible authorities with limited success. The licence holder appears determined to ignore any advice given to her from responsible bodies and therefore the Sub-Committee is of the view that she is incapable of promoting the licencing objectives.
The Sub-Committee places great weight on the representations of the responsible authorities, noting from paragraph 9.12 of the statutory guidance that the responsible authorities are experts in their respective fields.
The Sub-Committee considered the representations of the licence holder within the report. The Sub-Committee do not accept her explanations that the premises was being used at 3am for cleaning and do not accept that she is being treated unfairly. The Sub-Committee considers that she has had ample opportunity to engage but has failed to do so.
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: 9 January 2026