5
The Licensing Sub-Committee received report ES/2708 which related to a new premises licence for the Norman Warrior Public House, Fir Lane, Lowestoft, NR32 2RB.
The Licensing Officer summarised the report, noting that the reason for the licensing sub-committee was that 5 representations against the premises licence application had been received. These had previously been circulated as Appendix C of the report.
Since the submission of the application and following the receipt of the representations, the applicant had withdrawn the request for a licence to permit the playing of live or recorded music outside, and the ability to play live or recorded music was to be limited to indoors only. The Licensing Officer confirmed that, under deregulation, the playing of live unamplified music was permitted in a work place, for example a beer garden, when a premises had a licence for on sales of alcohol. There were various criteria which must be met in order to make use of this exemption under the Live Music Act 2012. The applicant had agreed the following conditions with the Council’s Environmental Protection department.
- All doors and windows being closed except for access and egress during the provision of regulated entertainment.
- A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system and maintained in accordance with the following criteria. The limiter shall be set to a level so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to a local residents or businesses. No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.
The applicant had also agreed to include the following condition on any premises licence which may be granted:
- the beer garden will be cleared of customers by 10pm, after that time, no customers will be permitted to remain in the beer garden except for the customers who have gone to the designated smoking area. These customers will not be permitted to take drinks with them.
The Licensing Officer told the Sub-Committee that 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 the licensing policy and the human rights act 1998. If members of the Sub-Committee had reason to depart from these, they are asked to give full reasons for doing so.
The Sub-Committee were asked to determine the application by
- Granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and those consistent with the application
- Granting the application subject to the same conditions but modified to such an extent as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives or
- Rejecting the application
The Licensing Officer said that dependent on the decision of the Sub-Committee, both the applicant and other parties that have made representations had the right to appeal this to the magistrate’s court. When announcing its decision, the sub-committee was asked to state its reasons.
The Chair invited questions to the Licensing Officer.
The Chair asked the Licensing Officer how long the venue had held a licence and it was confirmed that it had held a licence since 1934.
The Chair asked how the conditions applied for compared with the previous licensing conditions? The Licensing Officer replied they had originally applied with the exact same conditions as the previous licence holder and they had recommended that these were updated to adhere with the licensing act.
The Chair asked what complaints had been received about the premises in the past 10 years. The Licensing Officer confirmed that any complaints would have been sent to Environmental Protection and dealt with by them.
Councillor Plummer confirmed that the report documents said that since 2004 there had been 12 investigations by Environmental Protection on file.
In response to Councillor Plummer, the Licensing Officer said that the licence had lapsed due to the previous premises licence holder, it had lapsed in September 2024.
Councillor Back noted that the applicant was prepared to install a noise limiter. From his experience bands brought in their own PA equipment. He asked how that would work and what would be the limit. The Licensing Officer replied that a limiter would be set by the Environmental Protection team and any equipment used would need to have that limit on it.
Councillor Plummer referred to the licensing times that were being considered and asked how they compared with other close by venues.
The Chair invited the applicant to ask questions of the Licensing Officer.
The applicant asked the Licensing Officer to confirm that there had been no representations from the responsible authorities and the Licensing officer confirmed that was correct. He asked was it correct that under home office guidance they were to be viewed as experts, the Licensing Officer confirmed that was correct. The applicant said in that case the experts in crime and disorder, police and EP, noise and nuisance did not object. The Licensing Officer confirmed that this was correct.
The Chair invited the objectors to question the Licensing Officer.
The Objector said that they understood the solicitor’s comments regarding experts not objecting, however she questioned why their complaints had not been registered on the system. The Licensing Officer confirmed they would all be stored on Environmental Protection’s system. They would be checked and cleared or looked into by EP and deemed no noise nuisance.
The ESC Solicitor asked if there were any other nearby public houses and whether they had similar licensing hours to the Norman Warrior.
The ESC Solicitor asked when the licence lapsed. It was confirmed that the official date the licence lapsed was 23 December 2025.
The applicant added that it was due to the previous tenant’s financial arrangements that this licence lapsed. They understood that the operator was ill and insolvency caused the licence to lapse.
The Chair asked the applicant to make their representation.
The applicant said they were a reluctant applicant, a pub company reapplying for a licence in identical terms to a licence that had lapsed. The licence lapse was no fault of theirs. They were representing EI, used to be Enterprise Inns which was the biggest pub owning company in the country, owning around 2800 pubs, the vast majority were leased out to tenants who operated their own businesses out of their premises. The tenant holds the premises licence. This particular premises had been occupied by the same premises licence holder since 2007 and due to his financial arrangements the licence had lapsed.
The applicant told the Sub-Committee that the premises licence remained untouched since it was granted in 2005. They understood the concerns of the local residents, they believed in good pubs which were a benefit to the community and tried to work with the community to achieve that. Due to an administrative issue with the previous licensee, they were now applying for the same licence as before. They would be adding new bolstered conditions and would be breathing life back into the pub. He acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding that the venue wished to be a music venue. He said this was not the case and they were looking for the licence to be reinstated with the previous terms.
They acknowledged the concerns within the representations received and proposed conditions such as curfew in the garden, noise limiter, doors and windows being closed. They acknowledged that the EP report had 2 complaints on it since Covid. Referring to those types of complaints they said there were measures they could implement to stop those issues. They wanted to restore good management and get the pub up and running again.
The Chair asked the objector to make their representation.
The Objector said they had lived next to the Norman Warrior since 2001, initially there had been no cause for complaint, when events were running such as beer festivals etc, they left the area. However, the interior layout of the pub had been changed and that had meant that noise now affected their home.
They had incurred increasingly unbearable noise. In March 2025 they requested a list of events. They had not been able to get anyone from Environmental Protection to attend to witness the noise when it was actually occurring. In May 2025 the landlord had someone on the patio singing by their fence, but again they had no recording equipment and were unable to get anyone to attend.
At the end of May 2025 a family BBQ had to be moved indoors to swearing from the patio. There had been no interaction from the Council, they were directed to online help. They sent videos of incidents that they had recorded on their phones in July 2025.
They were hoping to sell their property but had lost potential buyers due to the proximity to the pub and potential buyers carrying out a search of Environmental Protection incidents.
Their experience was that the previous landlord did not manage boundaries, the police were called but were not able to help them. They recognised it was a pub in a residential area, but the homes had been there since 1900.
They returned from holiday in January and saw that a licence had been applied for in the Lowestoft Journal. They immediately objected, and felt this was sneakily done with no consultation with neighbours; no one had come to see them at the property to see the problems first hand.
They had received the letter from the applicant’s solicitor regarding the outside music licence being withdrawn and a noise limiter applied. However, this was followed by a letter regarding deregulation and that it would technically be permitted in a beer garden as it was treated as a workplace.
They felt that they had been urged to believe that the applicant’s intentions were positive. However, “significant efforts” meant nothing. They felt that the doors and windows being closed was a nonsense, it was close to their garden and the entrance to the smoking area.
They were hopeful that a new company would treat their community with consideration. However, why would they not object as they didn’t know what the intentions were – they felt that vague intentions and statements were not good enough.
The Senior Licensing Officer clarified that they had complaints on file, they were on their record, but it was the responsibility of Environmental Protection to deal with them. It was clear to them that EP were dealing with them, and they were not a direct licensing matter. She added that all parties were aware that deregulation did mean that music could be played in a workplace. They had heard the applicant’s representation, and it was not their intention to have music. She added that they would always advise that nothing is set in stone, anyone can apply for a review of the licence.
The Chair invited the second objector to make their representation. As a neighbourhood watch coordinator, they said the location was completely wrong for their area, with residents close proximity to the pub and elderly people in close proximity. He said the proposed venture seemed to be like a nightclub scenario. He recommended they looked at locations such as Hanks on the seafront.
He said that drugs and alcohol consumption would increase enormously . He was already involved in the drug clearing of the area. He was advised not to get to do that but had to pick them up and dispose of them. He said the Council did jetwash the opening.
Within the pub he said the air conditioning needed to be on, so that doors and windows were not opened in the summertime. Sound proofing needed to be installed. He said they would need to employ a security firm and if they wanted to run that type of establishment, they should look at alternative premises, like Hanks, which stood empty on the seafront.
The Chair invited all parties to sum up.
The Licensing Officer said the applicant had stated there would be no music. Noise complaints are dealt with by Environmental Protection and nothing is set in stone, there is always the review process.
The applicant summed up as follows:
Referring to the Home Office Guidance which states that it should be evidence based and proportionate, they told the Sub-Committee that the evidence was that the premises licence wasn’t lost due to complaints, problems, review of application – it was lost for administrative reasons.
The premises have not been a problem as the licence conditions were not touched for nearly 20 years.
Referring to the responsible authority – they said if the police had any concern regarding the hours or conditions, they would have lodged a representation and be present at the sub-committee; similarly with EP if they had concerns. The applicant said that none of the experts objected to reinstating what was previously there but with stronger conditions. They were the biggest pub company in the country, with demonstrable reputation for working with residents. They had listened to the residents and removed the music in the garden and said they were not intending to have music in the garden. They have worked with residents and authorities and wished to breathe life back into the premises.
Regarding the allegation of it being a nightclub they said that the only person who thought that was the objector. They intended it to be a well run pub and that was what was required. They did not want a boarded up place that was decaying as that causes problems within the community.
The asked that the licence be regranted, with the terms that had been asked for and amended. They reiterated that if there were any issues then come to them and lodge review proceedings. The location of the pub had never been wrong.
The objector summed up by reiterating that Environmental Protection had not helped or liaised with them. They could not see how the door from the public bar to the smoking area could be policed unless it was reorganised internally and the restaurant layout reinstated as it was originally. She asked how she could access help from recording equipment as it would not be possible to police people in the beer garden. Finally she asked how many of the Sub-Committee lived in the area, they were the people that lived there and experienced it.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision.
Decision Notice
EI Group Ltd (the applicant) has applied for a new premises licence for the Norman Warrior, Fir Lane, Lowestoft, NR32 2RB. The application seeks to permit the supply of alcohol (on and off sales) as well as live and recorded music. The proposed opening hours are Sunday to Thursday 09:00 to 00:30 and Friday to Saturday 09:00 to 01:00.
This Sub-Committee has been held as five representations against the application had been received from other persons. No representations were received from any Responsible Authorities. The summary of grounds for objection was that the proposed licensable hours would be inappropriate in a residential area and could cause significant noise disturbance to nearby residents.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the applicant has made amendments to their initial application having taken into account the objectors’ concerns. The amendments to the application included extra conditions agreed with the Council’s Environmental Protection team. The applicant also withdrew their application for live and recorded music outside of the premises. The Licensing Officer then confirmed that under deregulation, the playing of live unamplified music is permitted in a workplace, for example a beer garden, when a premises has a licence for on sales of alcohol.
When asked by the Sub-Committee as to the previous history of the premises it was confirmed that it has been a licensable premises since the 1930s. The previous licence lapsed officially on 23 December 2025. Since 2004, the Council’s Environmental Protection Team has received 12 complaints. Another nearby public house that is also in a residential area has later opening and licensing hours to those the Norman Warrior has applied for.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant who explained that the Norman Warrior’s previous licence lapsed due to the previous tenant. The Applicant made it clear that the Sub-Committee were considering the licence today solely due to a lapse and not due to complaints or a review. The Applicant confirmed that they were not wanting to turn the premises into a music venue as suggested by the objectors and wants to work with the community and liaise with neighbours to mitigate their concerns. The Applicant stated that they currently run 8 other licensed premises with licences issued by East Suffolk Council.
The Sub-Committee then heard from those who made representations in objection to the application. The objectors stated that the previous landlord changed around the inside of the premises which caused them a significant noise nuisance. Smokers in the beer garden have made it so that the objector cannot comfortably use their own garden and the objector has raised numerous issues with Environmental Protection over the past few years. Another objector raised concerns as to the potential for the premises to exacerbate the anti-social behaviour in the area.
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 as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, however modified as follows:
All doors and windows being closed, except for access/egress, during the provision of regulated entertainment.
A noise limiter must be fitted to the musical amplification system and maintained in accordance with the following criteria:
i.the limiter shall be set at a level so as to ensure that no noise nuisance is caused to local residents or businesses,
ii.No additional sound generating equipment shall be used on the premises without being routed through the sound limiter device.
The beer garden will be cleared of customers by 10pm. After that time, no customers will be permitted to remain in the beer garden save for customers who have gone to the designated smoking area outside temporarily to smoke. Those customers will not be permitted to take any drinks with them.
The licensable and opening hours are granted as applied for, with the exception of outdoor live and recorded music as this was withdrawn by the applicant.
Live music (Indoors)
Friday and Saturday - 20:00 to 00:00
Sunday - 20:00 to 23:30
Bank Holiday weekend (Fri-Mon inc.) - 20:00 to 00:00. Christmas Eve - 20:00 to 01:00.
New Year's Eve - 20:00 to 02:00
Recorded music (Indoors)
Monday to Thursday - 10:30 to 00:00
Friday and Saturday - 10:30 to 00:30
Sunday - 12:00 to 00:00
Bank Holiday weekend (Fri-Mon inc.) - 10:30 to 00:30.
Christmas Eve - 10:30 to 01:00.
New Year's Eve - 10:30 to 02:00
Supply of Alcohol (On and Off the premises)
Monday to Thursday - 10:30 to 00:00
Friday and Saturday - 10:30 to 00:30
Sunday - 12:00 to 00:00
Bank Holiday weekend (Fri-Mon inc.) -10:30 to 00:00.
Christmas Eve -10:30 to 01:30.
New Year's Eve - 10:30 to 02:30
PROPOSED OPENING HOURS
Sunday to Thursday - 09:00 to 00:30
Friday and Saturday - 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 the Police and Environmental Protection as they are the main source of information on prevention of public nuisance.
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. As the applicant has previous experience of running a licensed premises the Sub-Committee is confident that the applicant is capable of promoting the licensing objectives.
The Sub-Committee also took into account the representations from the objectors. The Sub-Committee appreciated that the applicant has amended their application in an attempt to resolve the issues raised by the objectors. The premises has been licensed for many years and the Sub-Committee note that the Norman Warrior’s licence is only being considered at this hearing as the previous licence lapsed.
The Sub-Committee advises that if the objectors experience any public nuisance as a result of this licence being granted then it can be reported to the Council. Anyone, including residents, can call for a review of a premises licence.
The Sub-Committee note that ‘public nuisance’ should be interpreted in its widest sense to include such issues as noise, light, odour, litter and anti-social behaviour, where these matters impact on those living, working or otherwise engaged in normal activity in the vicinity of a licensed premises per section 14.4. Section 2.25 of the Act states that the most sensitive period for disruption by public nuisance is between 11pm and 8am. The Sub-Committee note that the modified conditions will ensure that the Applicant takes controlling measures to reduce the impact of noise and disturbance to neighbours.
In arriving at this decision, the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration the representations of both the applicant and the 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 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: 20 February 2026