5
The Chair asked the Legal Adviser to clarify the procedure.
The Chair sought confirmation that all parties had received the agenda and report for the meeting. The Chair asked the Applicant if they wished to withdraw their application and they confirmed that they did not.
The Chair asked the Licensing Officer to advise if there had been any requests for the appearance of any witnesses or if there was any documentary or additional information which a party wished to present. The Licensing Officer said a letter was submitted on 13 January which would be covered in his report.
The Licensing Officer summarised the report. He explained it was an application for a new Premises Licence which sought to permit the supply of alcohol (on and off premises), live and recorded music and late-night refreshment.
The hearing was taking place because there had been 8 representations objecting to the application. There were no objections from statutory bodies.
The attention of the Sub-Committee was drawn to The Licensing Act 2003 Section 4 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when reaching its decision.
On 13 January a letter was sent from the Applicant to persons who had made representations. As a result, one representation was withdrawn. In the letter the Applicant said they would not advertise large scale events, any large scale events would require a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) and they would reduce the music volume between midnight and 1am.
Councillor Reeves asked about the plan, which showed 6 areas marked in red. He asked if all those areas would be able to sell/provide alcohol. The Licensing Officer said there was a key on the map which indicated that all the red areas were those that could sell/provide alcohol. He also pointed out the light blue line which indicated the areas of licensable activities. Councillor Reeves asked why the Gate House was also included.
An Objector said he did not receive a letter from the Applicant as the Licensing Officer said. The Applicant said the letter was sent to all the email addresses of objectors that they had received from the Licensing team.
The Legal Adviser asked for a copy of the letter and a brief adjournment so they could consider the contents.
The Legal Adviser asked if they had applied for any TENs before and they had received any complaints. The Licensing Officer said they couldn’t see any applications for TENs.
The Chair invited the Applicant to speak. The Applicant appreciated being given a platform to make their case. He pointed out that they had tried to seek resolution. He explained that the Restaries was a wellness-led retreat. It was a place for calm, considered time offering seasonal food and occasionally offering shared meals. It was an accommodation led site and they would like to offer alcohol with their in-room services. He said that was why the dwellings were highlighted on the application. He stressed that they were not seeking to become a live music venue and the only reason for including live music on the application was in case they did something for the local community. He explained that the application covered the maximum times that things could take place but not what would happen regularly.
The Applicant respected the strength of feeling locally but he said these are based on worst case scenarios rather than our track record. They already hosted small scale weekly dinners that were calm, seated and pre-booked. They would serve alcohol responsibly and play quiet background music. The Applicant said there had been no complaints and had only held two larger gatherings, one of which was a 70th birthday party for a local, attended largely by locals, and a friend’s wedding. Neighbours were notified in advance and there were no complaints. They have declined approaches for weddings as they do not want to be a wedding venue. They made the choice to turn down significant income. But they wished a licence to manage alcohol responsibly and felt this was better than ‘Bring Your Own’ (BYO). They would like to serve locally produced organic wine. They were not looking to expand the operations, just operate responsibly.
The Applicant explained that they attended a Parish Council meeting and have tried to engage with residents. They had taken steps to reassure the community including ceasing advertising large scale events, applying for TENs for large scale events and reducing the music volume after midnight. The Applicant was content for the Sub-Committee to impose conditions on frequency of events if that helped with the licensing objectives.
The Applicant noted the objections about the impact on the rural area. They have restored a 16th century building and they operate a low impact use and wellness model rather than intensification. Nuisance was not supported by evidence but they would support sensible safeguards and respond quickly to concerns.
The Applicant said the objections were about Highways concerns and large crowds. There is no mass dispersal and they offer onsite parking. For the one wedding where there was late night dispersal they used a local taxi company.
They were not aware that anything they did has increased light pollution but were willing to make changes if there was an issue.
Regarding Quiet Lanes they promoted walking, with many guests not driving during their stay.
The Applicant explained that the Restaries was a sanctuary not a site for revelry. There was no evidence of harm and any concerns were based on what could happen rather than what was proposed. The Applicant asked for it to be granted.
The Chair pointed out that this meeting regarded licensing matters only and was not concerned with planning matters. He invited questions to the Applicant.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked when they sent the letter out and how long they had been running the business. The Applicant confirmed it was sent the day after the Parish Council meeting and the business had been operating for about 18 months.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked what their biggest event was so far. The Applicant said they had a wedding for about 100 and around 70 for a birthday party. He explained that they can only have 26 staying on site as a maximum.
Councillor Reeves asked if it was still a working farm. The applicant said it was a small holding, pets really.
Councillor Reeves asked if there were children on site and if it was family-friendly and if there would be a problem with loud music at night. The Applicant said their 2-year-old and 4-year-old lived on site and 80% of the people who visited had children. It was a family focused retreat. They did not plan to hold loud music events and you couldn’t hear the music within 4 metres. The music is background music. The Applicant was happy for live music to be taken off the licence. They explained that they play music through a speaker in each venue and the accommodation was not impacted by the music.
Councillor Reeves asked how many TENs they envisaged needing a year. The Applicant said no more than one a year and it would be for family weddings. They had wanted to do some events for the local community; a local acoustic performance. However, if the locals don’t want this it can be withdrawn.
Councillor Reeves asked if they would accept a condition limiting the numbers of TENs to 3-4 a year. The Applicant agreed. He explained that what they were applying for was no different from what they did now except that it would change from BYO to allow the control of the consumption of alcohol.
Councillor Reeves asked about the reference to a store. The Applicant explained that they have an onsite shop that sells local produce. They would like to be able to run a concierge service and take produce from the store to the rooms. They also have a hamper service and want to be able to add on wine/sparkling wine which this licence would allow.
The Licensing Officer clarified that they applied for live music on the application but if removed the areas highlighted in red could have the automatic entitlement to play live music up to 11pm if the alcohol licence was granted. The Applicant said they were happy not to have live music.
The Chair invited the objectors to make their statements. The first objector asked why they put in for this licence. They were not prepared to take anything away and weren’t interested in people who lived locally. The Applicant explained that the licence was to regulate and formalise everything they did. They were willing to change things as shown in their letter.
The Objector said he never received a letter and he has everything on file. He had invited them over for coffee to explain everything and was told that the licence was generic. But now he’s heard there are other things you can have but he was told this was the only licence that they could apply for.
The Applicant said based on the scenarios this is the licence that we can apply for. The application is for the maximum but it doesn’t mean we would implement everything. He explained he had taken advice from a licensing firm on the application. They were also told that the letter went out to all the emails that had submitted representations. The Applicant explained the scenario of staying at a hotel on a Monday for your birthday and ordering a bottle of champagne to celebrate. For that to happen you need this sort of licence. The Applicant said they were booked 80% of the time and people come all days of the week.
The Objector felt that some of the things being said now are not what you said at the time and asked why he didn’t get the letter. He had suggested that they should put a letter through everyone’s door when they made the application.
The Chair said his question had been answered.
The Applicant said it was raised at the Parish Council meeting and the letter was sent to all the emailed representations that they had received. The Licensing Officer confirmed the letter had been sent out.
The Licensing Officer confirmed this was the only alcohol licence that could be applied for. A TEN was for a one-off event but it is not a licence.
The Objector said he had met with the Applicants and running 365 days a year from 11am to 11pm and music from 9am to 1am was not appropriate in a quiet rural area. He lives 6 miles away from Latitude and can hear that. He lives just down the road from this and can’t believe they have applied for this and it is disrespectful. The website says you can take over the site and that the keys are handed over. Who will be there looking after it and making sure the noise is not too much. He was concerned about the volume of noise. He had lived there for 20 years and expected agricultural noise but this music was excessive and once they get the licence what is to say they won’t use everything they got.
He had concerns about parking but was told that was not a licensing matter. He was concerned about Health and Safety on the road. He said if the licence went through it would be detrimental to his and his family’s wellbeing because of the hours they are requesting.
The Chair asked him to show where his property is on the map which he did.
The Objector had a statement from another resident who could not attend. They had recently met with the Applicant and tried to get clarity on such an extensive licence. They wanted to know if the property was sold will the licence transfer and if it was valid for a certain number of years. Can they complain if it is too noisy and what does the on/off sales mean. It does not stop people doing BYO but the Applicant told them they needed the music licence to go alongside the alcohol licence. The Applicant did reassure them about the 10pm music rule and there would only be one wedding a year. In the summer when the doors and windows are open people will be outside. The Objector showed Members the location of the property which is 2 metres from the boundary and 7 metres from the nearest Restaries property.
The Licensing Officer clarified about on and off sales and what it meant. The Objector said he understood that.
The Applicant explained that the 2metres was the Gate House but the dinners are hosted far further away. They had invited all residents to come and hear the noise. They held an event last night which could not be heard. The music is for the event space and the offsales was so you can take the wine home and drink it in your accommodation. They had two events that used parking across the road but there is enough parking for guests staying on site. The Applicant said they had a site manager onsite 100% of the time and at no point are guests alone on site.
The Objector was concerned that on the website they advertise clay pigeon shooting on and off site. Alcohol and shooting do not go together. These are small things but they come to a big thing.
The second Objector had concerns about the narrow lanes and the one reaching Restaries was a Quiet Lane. The licence would disturb their lives and those of neighbours. They had concerns about the traffic which will be a public safety concern. They were worried it would lead to criminal activity and ASB and they don’t want this in the village. They said they had been disturbed by music at the Restaries although hadn’t complained as it didn’t happen very often, but they would be disturbed and they weren’t happy about 1am.
Councillor Reeves pointed out that many of the points raised were not factors for licensing but were related to planning.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked how many times they had been disturbed. The second Objector said only twice. They don’t live close but do hear the music and they are disturbed by Latitude.
The Applicant explained that they had gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent parking on the lane. They always have wardens for large events. Regarding the noise complaints they were doorstepped on one evening and the noise was actually coming from somewhere else. The other occasion was before the control measures were in place.
There was a brief adjournment whilst Councillor Smith-Lyte attended to a parking issue.
The Applicant stressed that large scale events were not their focus. They did two events, one of which ended at the same time as the nearby pub. Restaries is about rest and retreat but they want the ability to sell alcohol. Guests have never parked on the verge or blocked or disturbed the roads and they are not like Latitude. The Applicant said they had invited the Objector come to the property and witness the speakers.
The third Objector said he was the immediate next-door neighbour to the west and he was concerned about noise nuisance. However what he would have said could be expressed by the Parish Council representative.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked if they had been disturbed and how often in the last year. The Objector said thus far very little but he was the primary carer for his mother who lives in a different parish so wasn’t at home as much.
The Applicant responded that they had enjoyed a live music event the Objector had put on. The Applicant had to leave early as her child was a baby and although the music could be heard it was turned off at 10pm and she enjoyed listening from her house. The Applicant was in awe of what his daughters created next door and was very respectful and they would do the same.
The Chair of the Parish Council was invited to speak. He explained that the Restaries was surrounded by properties on 3 sides accessed by single track roads with passing places. The Parish Council sent a letter in September and the reply from the Applicant said they had 3 notable scale events. The Parish Council wrote the letter as they had a string of complaints and the residents didn’t want to complain formally. The Parish Council feels this isn’t the right place for the events that they want. They would like the alcohol licence restricted to the people who are in residence and end the music at a sensible time. They need to sort their parking out and there were concerns about the road network.
Councillor Reeves said there were lots of complaints about drunken people and if there was more detail. The Chair of the Parish Council said they were staying at the Restaries and walking back from where they had been and walked through a garden.
Councillor Smith-Lyte asked for the time but the Parish Councillor did not know.
The Licensing Officer explained that if people got drunk offsite this was nothing to do with the Restaries. The Applicant said this was the first they had heard about this incident. The only place people would go is the Racehorse pub so perhaps that was where they were. The Restaries is a gated community and they have not experienced people coming back drunk or experienced people on site drunk. The Applicant couldn’t believe they could come back in the pitch dark down the road without them hearing. They noted that the pub has lots of events that are attended by people outside of the village.
The Chair invited all parties to sum up.
The Licensing Officer summed up explaining that public safety must be taken into account but only at the premises. If the parking is not on the premises it was not relevant.
The Applicant thanked everyone for their time. This was a small accommodation wellness led retreat of limited scale and not an events venue. The licence was sought to manage guests responsibly that supports the objectives. Where any concerns have been raised they have engaged and accepted additional controls. They were respectful of the local environment.
The first Objector said the hours requested outstripped what was required of the local area. He could not see why they needed this licence for this amount of hours. He had no problem with drinking but it was just the noise. He said the Applicant says they are concerned about the locals but if they were they wouldn’t put in this licence.
The Parish Councillor recognised it was a business and needed to make money but the loss of environment for locals was not acceptable. They were happy to accept the compromise to licence for those onsite only but nothing else.
Licensing Officer explained that the licence for this site would be the same for a hairdressing salon if you had a glass of wine when having your haircut. They pointed out the operating hours of the nearby pub which had on/off sales Friday and Saturday until 12.30am, Sunday to Thursday until 11pm and live music until 11pm.
The Chair acknowledged the strong feelings of those in attendance. The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider their decision.
Decision Notice
Mr Thomas Michael Patrick Scherdel (the applicant) has applied for a new premises licence for the Restaries, Paradise Farm, Westhall, Suffolk, IP19 8RH. The application seeks to permit the following licensable activities: the sale of alcohol for on and off sales Monday to Sunday 11:00 to 01:00, live and recorded music and late-night refreshment. The proposed opening hours are Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 01:00.
This Sub-Committee has been held as eight representations from other persons and Westhall Parish Council had been received. No representations were received from any Responsible Authorities. The summary of grounds for the objections was that the proposed licensable hours extending to 1am would be inappropriate for a rural location with nearby residential properties. The proposed hours for music would also cause significant noise disturbance to nearby residents.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer provided the Sub-Committee with an additional document. The Sub-Committee took a short adjournment to consider the contents of the document. This was a letter that the Applicant had sent to those who made representations. Because of this letter one representation was withdrawn. The letter proposed the following amendments to the initial application: to remove and cease advertising large events, adapt the licence so any large events would require a Temporary Events Notice (TEN) and accept a condition to reduce music volume after 11pm. The Sub-Committee asked for clarification of the site map and where the supply of alcohol would be on the premises. The Licensing Officer confirmed that no TENs had been applied for previously at the premises.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant who explained that the Restaries is a wellness-led, rural retreat. The site is intended for paying guests only and they offer a lot of in-room services. The applicant does not intend for the premises to become an events venue and they only added live music to the application in case they wanted to run an event for the community.
The applicant said they opened 18 months ago and hold small-scale private dinners for guests which form part of the retreat experience. They explained that they played music in the background at an appropriate level. They had not received any direct complaints from neighbours. The licence was sought to manage alcohol responsibly; guests currently bring their own alcohol. The site also has a farm shop selling local produce and they would like to be able to sell alcohol in the shop. The applicant had made attempts to engage with the community prior to today’s hearing. They offered to limit the number of TENs to around 3-4 a year.
The Sub-Committee then heard from those who made representations in objection to the application. The objectors stated that in a rural area the noise will travel and disturb neighbouring residents, particularly if events ran until 1am. They were concerned about the lack of security or lack of measures in place to regulate guest behaviour. The main concern of the objectors was in relation to noise disturbance that could occur if the licence was granted. The Parish Council’s concerns were that it wasn’t a suitable location for this type of events. When three notable events were held in the past the Parish Council received complaints from nearby residents.
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 accompanying the application, however modified as follows in promotion of the licensing objectives:-
The sale of alcohol for on and off sales:
Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 23:00
Friday and Saturday 11:00 to midnight
Late-night refreshment:
Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 01:00
Live Music (indoor and outdoor):
Monday to Sunday 11:00 to 23:00
Recorded Music (indoor):
Sunday to Thursday 11:00 to 23:00
Friday and Saturday 11:00 to midnight
Opening Hours:
Monday to Sunday 09:00 to 01:00.
Reasons for decision
The Sub-Committee notes under paragraph 9.12 of the Statutory Guidance that the responsible authorities are experts in their respective fields. The Sub-Committee took great weight in making its decision upon the lack of responses from Responsible Authorities, most notably Environmental Protection and the Police as they are the main sources of information on prevention of public nuisance.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant stressed that they did not intend to become a live music venue or hold many large-scale events as their focus was on wellbeing and a family focussed retreat. The applicant assured the Sub-Committee that they would only apply for a maximum of four TENs annually but did not intend to host regular weddings or similar events. The Sub-Committee would like to recommend that they do not exceed this amount.
The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant has taken steps to be conciliatory towards the local residents and was willing to adjust the application to make it more acceptable. Therefore the Sub-Committee believes the applicant will be capable of upholding the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee considered the Council’s own guidance in relation to licensing objectives and that each new licence should be considered on individual merit. Additionally, 6.1 of the Council’s Policy states that the Sub-Committee should not seek to restrict the trading hours of any particular premises unless it is considered appropriate to promote one or more of the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee felt it was appropriate to restrict the licensable hours due to the concerns of local residents and the Parish Council.
As there has not been a licence at the premises before the Sub-Committee could not confidently determine if noise would cause a disturbance. However the evidence presented so far suggests that the applicant has put in measures to mitigate noise nuisance. The Sub-Committee noted that there have been very few complaints and no official complaints and there was a site manager on the premises at all times. The Sub-Committee advises that if the objectors experience noise nuisance as a result of this licence being granted then they can be reported to the Council and anyone, including residents, can call for a review of a premises licence.
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the applicant and the 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 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 this decision.
Date: 29 January 2026