Report of the Licensing Officer
5
The Legal Advisor clarified the procedure, advising that only those people that had made representations could speak and should there be any disruptive behaviour, the Chair had the power to exclude the public from the meeting.
All parties confirmed that they had received the papers and report.
The applicant confirmed they did not wish to withdraw their application.
The Solicitor advised that it was up to the objectors if they wished to elect a spokesperson to speak or speak individually, acknowledging the possibility of repetition.
There were no requests for witnesses or additional documentation. The Chair invited the Licensing Officer to summarise the report.
The Licensing Officer told the Committee that an application had been made for a new premises licence at Edge at Noko, Ringsfield, NR34 8NT. The Licensing Sub-Committee was being held as 32 relevant representations had been received from local residents and one from Environmental Protection. There were no objections from other responsible authorities.
The Licensing Officer advised that since the application was submitted, the applicant now wished to withdraw the following aspects of the licence:
• Films
• Indoor sporting events
• Live music (indoors and outdoors)
• Performance of dance (indoors)
• Recorded music (indoors and outdoors)
This left only
• Supply of alcohol (on and off the premises)
• Late night refreshments (indoors and outdoors)
These changes had been sent all parties, resulting in 4 representations being withdrawn including one from Environmental Protection.
A noise management report had been produced and sent to all parties.
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
1. Granting the application subject to any mandatory conditions and those consistent with the application
2. 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
3. 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.
There were no questions from the Sub-Committee for the Licensing Officer.
The Chair noted that the application covered the entire site rather than a specific area for indoor music and asked for views on the acceptability of outdoor music across the whole site, particularly given the proximity to neighbours. The Solicitor advised that this reflected the application as submitted and that it was for the Sub-Committee to determine if it was acceptable.
KF (Objector) sought clarification on whether the withdrawal of live and recorded music applied at all times. The Solicitor advised that, under deregulation, if the sale of alcohol was granted, live or recorded music would be permitted anywhere within the licensed area.
There were no questions from the legal advisor for the Licensing Officer.
The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant who thanked them for the opportunity to present his case.
He told the Sub-Committee that the application was not simply about obtaining an alcohol licence it represented years of hard work, community values, and a long-standing vision.
He told the Sub-Committee that he grew up in a small village in Norfolk, where he learned the importance of supporting neighbours, contributing locally, and working hard. His first job was in a community pub, the Upton White Horse, where he saw first-hand how venues can bring people together and become a vital part of village life. That sense of community is the foundation on which Edge was built.
Fourteen years ago, he started his journey in Winterton-on-Sea. Since then, his focus has always been on creating spaces where people can gather through food, drink, and shared experiences while supporting local people, suppliers, and charities.
He told the Sub-Committee that Edge at Noko was the continuation of that dream. In just four weeks since opening, they had already been serving ice creams, coffees, and locally sourced specials, paired with wines from local vineyards and producers. Without a premises licence, they could not continue to offer this full experience.
They had also supported local musicians, hosted community events, sponsored a local under-10s football team, funded park benches for public use, held coffee mornings and cake events for charitable causes and were planning a Christmas market supporting local suppliers, with proceeds going to charity and Ringsfield Village Hall.
Obtaining the licence would allow them to expand those contributions, particularly fundraising events that bring the community together while supporting important causes.
They currently employed 28 staff, many of whom were local. These were real jobs and real opportunities in an industry that continues to struggle. They provide training, build confidence, and give people valuable life skills. Without this licence, those jobs and opportunities would be at risk.
He told the Sub-Committee that he fully understood the responsibilities that come with a premises licence, including safety, behaviour, noise control and they were committed to operating professionally and within the law. They were a premium, family friendly hospitality venue, not a high volume drinking establishment. It would make no business sense for them to operate in any other way. They had trained staff and clear supervision, a Challenge 25 policy, took safeguarding and protecting children from harm seriously and took concerns from neighbours seriously.
They had carefully considered the objections raised.
Referring to anti-social behaviour, he told the Sub-Committee that there was no evidence that this would arise from restaurant-style venues such as theirs. The allegations regarding their opening event did not reflect the reality. The event was professionally run, well supervised, and closed promptly.
Addressing parking, they said they would provide significant on-site parking, including approximately 25 additional spaces at the rear. The lodges had their own dedicated parking. Many customers staying on site or dining would arrive by taxi. The nearby green was frequently used for cricket, football and other events, so it was unfair to attribute all parking to their business. They would actively encourage considerate parking at all times.
He told the Sub-Committee the comments made publicly about the open event did not reflect the event. He had encouraged the community to meet for coffee to resolve the issues. He said it was unfortunate that the negative online posts had resulted in this situation, and it meant it was another day that he could not work. He felt that the community should encourage young entrepreneurs, he had no corporate financial backer, it was just him and his team. It was harder to trade when there was negative public feedback rather than people approaching him directly.
He asked the Sub-Committee to look at the wider picture, Edge at Noko was creating local jobs, supporting local suppliers and producers, supporting charity work and investing in the area.
He thanked the Sub-Committee for their time and asked that the licence was granted to continue to build something positive.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant from the Sub-Committee.
Councillor Green questioned whether hosting events for up to 400 people aligned with the description of a ‘wellness retreat’ in the management plan.
The applicant replied that in relation to the wellness retreat, a capacity limit of 450 had been applied, which related to the fire safety limit and represented the total number of people the site could accommodate at any one time. The 450 capacity was broken down across the various elements of the site as follows:
120 across café and restaurant
60 shops
60 salon/terrace space
60 upstairs dwellings (not currently in use)
60 across offices and kitchen
Further up to 60 ten lodges
30 maintenance and building site
Councillor Green asked how vehicles would be accommodated if the site reached full capacity and whether the village hall would be used. The applicant confirmed the village hall would not be used and advised that, in such circumstances, a risk assessment would be undertaken and alternative transport arrangements considered. It was acknowledged that the site could not accommodate around 200 cars on-site. The applicant stated there was parking for the 50 restaurant covers, dedicated spaces for the lodges, and additional car parks nearby, although one was not used after 6pm due to its proximity to residents. They added that they would work proactively through their traffic management plan to minimise any disturbance to local residents.
They were a licensed premises, they would encourage foot traffic, taxis, minibuses. They had the breakdown and would not exceed the fire risk assessment.
The Sub-Committee noted that planning permission had been granted in 2023 and asked the applicant to explain the process by which the proposals had changed from the original offer, and at what stage the applicant became involved.
The applicant explained that Edge was an external catering company specialising in private dining and events. They were approached to introduce a concept within the building and confirmed that they were not involved in the planning process. They added that, as a provider of high-end dining, the ability to sell wine was essential to operating the business.
The applicant explained that events would be occasional, such as birthday parties and small private gatherings where guests could dine. They confirmed the premises would now operate as a café/restaurant, noting that the only change from the original proposal was the addition of a restaurant element to the existing café/shop use.
Councillor Graham asked how the proposed restaurant, with extended hours, would benefit the local community, given the applicant’s reference to supporting local initiatives and charities.
The applicant responded that the venue was not intended to be a destination restaurant. They explained that the lodges would serve as the primary destination element, while the farm shop and café/restaurant would function as a local amenity.
The applicant was asked about parking, they estimated 50 covers in the restaurant and 25 parking spaces. This assumed some tables sat more than couples and assumed people were travelling in the same car. The applicant confirmed the restaurant was laid out with tables for 2 and 4.
They also had a booking system, so they were aware of who was coming in and out of the building and could monitor in advance. They confirmed that there was not anyone staying in the lodges currently.
The Sub-Committee asked about the outdoor seating areas associated with the lodges and their proximity to neighbouring properties. The applicant advised that, based on Google Earth, the rear seating area and the nearest lodges were approximately 45 metres from neighbouring gardens and homes.
The applicant was asked about capacity in the lodges, and they confirmed that they let up to 6 people in the lodges.
The Sub-Committee referred to a potential upstairs area and asked whether it could accommodate up to 60 people. The applicant clarified that there was a large first-floor space, but it was currently empty and there were no plans for it to be brought into operation. They noted that it was within the licensed boundary and therefore must be included within the overall red line area.
Councillors asked why the licensable area needed to cover such a large site. The applicant explained that this was primarily to allow service to guests staying in the lodges, for example providing hot food or drinks after 11pm. They noted that this element of the application was intended to facilitate off-sales for lodge guests.
The applicant confirmed that the lodges were for aged 16 and over (accompanied by adults. When asked if they would be used for stag and hen parties, the applicant replied they did not book the lodges, a separate company managed them.
Councillor Graham asked about the inclusion of a drugs amnesty box and whether this indicated an expectation of such activity. The applicant explained that this formed part of a standard, generic list rather than any anticipated issues at the venue. They added that, when preparing the application, they had included a range of potential activities to allow for occasional events, such as amplified music, a Christmas choir, indoor sports, or a darts team.
They agreed that a large venue would be unsuitable for the village.
The applicant confirmed that large-scale events were not their primary focus, with the premises intended to operate as a restaurant, village café, and farm shop. Extended hours and late-night refreshment were sought to support lodge guests through off sales. The site was approximately 60 metres from the village hall, and operated a booking system to manage numbers, and not all vehicles parked nearby were associated with the venue.
They welcomed the village community and were working with other community spaces in the area.
The applicant stated that the original application had been misunderstood and welcomed the opportunity to clarify matters. They confirmed that the application had been revised in response to objections and community feedback. They emphasised that the capacity of 450 related to the entire site in line with the fire risk assessment, and that the aim was to maintain a safe, clean, and well-managed premises. They hoped a positive outcome could be arrived at.
The applicant advised that following the Temporary Event Notice for the opening night, they had proactively responded to concerns. The staff car park was relocated the next day due to its proximity to residents. They had undertaken sound monitoring during trading, noting peak readings of 97 decibels internally and lower levels around the site, including approximately 37 decibels near the pond and 62 decibels in the rear car park. Some spikes were attributed to background noise such as birds.
They confirmed ongoing work on a noise management plan, including the installation of fencing to help disperse sound, inward-facing lodges, and a double door system to prevent noise escape. They added that measures were in place to minimise disturbance, including keeping doors closed and avoiding bin collections after 6pm.
Councillor Green asked where noise monitoring had been conducted on the site. The applicant advised that monitoring had taken place both inside the venue during the day and evening, and at several external locations, including the roadside at both car park entrances (noting one was no longer in use due to its proximity to a nearby dwelling), the rear of the site, and near the village hall adjacent to nearby homes. They confirmed these locations were chosen as they were closest to noise-sensitive properties.
The applicant would also monitor noise from village hall, to make sure their licence was not affected by outside noise from other venues close by (village hall - 60m).
There were no questions from the Licensing Officer for the applicant.
The Chair invited questions from the objectors for the applicant.
OS (Objector) stated that although it had been indicated the nearby car park was not in use, vehicles were still parking there, near to his property and garden. The applicant responded none of their staff were parking there, attributing the vehicles to builders and it was not related to the licensing application.
The objector queried the capacity of 60 people within the shop, given its size (approximately 4.5m by 4.5m), and challenged the accuracy of distances to lodges, noting that one was around 10 metres from a nearby house rather than 45 metres. The applicant responded that the figure of 60 was based on a fire risk assessment rather than their own estimate, and acknowledged that, in practice, around 10 people could occupy the shop space at any one time.
The objector stated that one lodge was approximately 10 metres from their property and that noise would travel from the front of the lodge. The applicant responded that the venue was not intended to operate as a party venue, but rather as a wellness retreat where people could sit, eat, and drink.
The applicant confirmed that a hotline would be established once the site was operational to address any issues promptly. They wanted to work positively with residents and not cause difficulties for those living nearby.
The objector raised concerns that the upstairs space, previously indicated for a site manager, was now suggested as accommodating up to 60 people. The applicant clarified that the figure came from a fire risk assessment, and the space was currently unused, and was included within the licensable area as it fell within the site boundary.
The objector was concerned that the proposed use could lead to increased noise, noting that when a family previously occupied the property, such activity would not have occurred.
The Solicitor confirmed at this stage it was for specific questions to the applicant.
The Chair asked whether staff would be present overnight. The applicant confirmed that staff would be on site, supported by a dedicated management plan for the duration of use.
EP (Objector) asked whether the additional parking at the rear of the site had planning permission, noting its potential impact on noise. The applicant advised that around 25 parking spaces, including lodge parking, had been agreed and that sufficient spaces were currently available. The Solicitor clarified that planning matters could be addressed through planning enforcement or the planning committee.
KF (Objector) queried whether the applicant was qualified to undertake noise monitoring. The applicant confirmed that readings had been taken using a calibrated decibel meter and explained that, while a professional would not always be present, a properly calibrated device would be used to monitor noise levels.
KF (Objector) asked whether a party had been booked and the applicant confirmed a 40th birthday party was booked for May.
BW (Objector) asked how the coffee invites were sent out as none of them had received invitations.
The applicant said that one individual had withdrawn their objection after visiting the site. They explained that they have been operating the business independently, working long hours, and had encouraged objectors to speak with them directly to resolve concerns. They emphasised that there was no personal agenda, and they were simply seeking to run their business.
The applicant confirmed that they would not exceed capacity, explaining that lodge occupancy and restaurant bookings would be managed through staggered sittings. They added that the café (open 9am–4pm) and evening restaurant operate at various times, allowing space to be used flexibly without overlap.
Councillor Graham asked for clarification on what the applicant considered to be an event. The applicant explained they would operate within their licensed permissions, noting that a party of 60 people would be no different to standard bookings of the same size. They defined an “event” as the hire of the entire venue, Councillor Graham sked if it would be typical to have both full venue hire and lodge bookings at the same time.
The applicant said an event would be additional to what they could usually offer (private hire of the venue). The lodges were separate to them but, they could all be booked out along with reservations for all guests in the restaurant. Live music would be separate.
The applicant said restaurant bookings were their priority, and they would not cancel those for a private event. A booking system was available for Thursday to Saturday. This was a restaurant trading with an alcohol licence, which was what they were seeking, café in the daytime, restaurant at night.
The Solicitor asked why they wished for alcohol later on a Thursday. They confirmed the restaurant was open Thursday to Saturday.
The applicant was asked why they needed the entire red area licensed. They confirmed that they did not for music, it was more for alcohol and food service to the lodges.
The applicant was asked if there was any scope to reduce the area should the Sub-Committee deem it appropriate. The applicant responded if the lodges were not included in the area, there was the risk of own alcohol being brought onto the site and no governance of the area.
The applicant noted that Edge was the food and drink operation and the lodges were separate. The Solicitor asked what control the applicant had over the lodges. The applicant replied they had staff on site, and if that part of the site weren’t included then they wouldn’t’ have control.
The Solicitor referred to a revised map showing a smaller area and asked whether the licence could be limited to that space. The applicant agreed this was possible, providing alcohol could still be sold from the site and lodge guests could purchase it from the shop. The Licensing Manager clarified that alcohol sales are tied to the specific licensed point of sale.
Councillor Reeves raised concerns about how out of hours monitoring would be managed. It was clarified that there were separate management teams; one for the lodges and wellness element, and an Edge Noko team responsible for the overall venue. Edge Noko would have responsibility for activity across the site and ensure someone was present who could respond to issues, including removing individuals if necessary. Incidents could be reported to them and managed accordingly.
It was suggested that a clear plan should be shared with the committee showing who owned and operated each part of the site. Regarding liability, it was clarified that there were two public liability licences in place, one covering the main venue and another for the wellness team, depending on which party would be responsible in the event of an incident.
The Chair invited the objectors to make their representations.
OS (Objector), a nearby resident living with his family at Brambles, objected due to concerns about increased activity, traffic, and disturbance in what was a quiet, primarily residential rural area. He said the proposal represented a significant change from the originally expected low key uses (e.g. tea room/local shop) and was not suitable for late night, large scale operations. His key concerns were noise and disruption, particularly late at night which could negatively affect family life, children’s wellbeing, sleep, and daily routines. Noise from events, conversations, and outdoor areas (e.g. decks and dining spaces) would be clearly heard due to their proximity. He highlighted potential impacts during summer months when outdoor space would be used more frequently. Concerns were raised about increased alcohol-related activity, risk of antisocial behaviour, and issues when patrons leave the site.
The proposed car park and higher traffic levels were seen as additional sources of noise (engines, doors, movement) and safety risks, particularly given nearby rural roads and a junction with a history of accidents. He questioned how noise would be monitored, how events would be managed and dispersed, and what measures would be in place to prevent disturbance. He also noted the proximity to homes, a village school, and a playground as heightening concerns about environmental impact and community wellbeing.
While supportive of local businesses in principle, he emphasised that any operation should be appropriately controlled to protect residents, suggesting limited hours and careful management if approved.
There were no questions from the Sub-Committee.
EP (Objector) made her representation. She was a nearby resident whose property backs onto the lodge site, she raised concerns about the impact on a small, quiet rural village with a mix of elderly residents and families. She noted that the original proposal for modest, low impact holiday lodges was supported and considered appropriate, but the current development felt significantly different in scale and impact.
She reported early issues already occurring, including dangerously parked cars and occasional loud noise, even before any late night licence had been granted.
Concerns were raised about the rural setting, including lack of public transport, unlit narrow roads, and how noise carries in such an environment.
She emphasised that night time disturbance would seriously affect residents’ wellbeing, particularly for families, including a child with additional needs.
She pointed out that planning permission was for lodges and a shop, not a restaurant and bar, and while acknowledging planning and licensing were separate, stressed that licensing should not effectively extend the original permission.
Despite some amendments, she considered the proposals still significant, with late night activity likely to bring increased traffic and noise into an otherwise quiet area.
She highlighted a discrepancy between how the site was promoted online and what was being applied for, raising concerns about the true nature of operations.
While not opposed to a small, well run daytime café and shop, she believed the proposed scale and use were not compatible with the character of Ringsfield.
Her concerns related particularly to the Licensing Act objectives of preventing public nuisance and ensuring public safety, given the existing challenges with rural roads and early operational problems.
Councillor Reeves commented that the objector lived close to the village hall which also had a licence up to 11pm. He asked what the difference was. The objector replied the events were less frequent and smaller and there was parking there. The village hall had more daytime events and only occasional evening events. This activity was multiple times a week.
The Licensing Officer noted the Village Hall hours were Monday to Friday 2pm to midnight, Saturday and Sunday 10am to midnight.
In response to Councillor Reeves the objector said their concerns were for the entire site, they were worried suggested amendments were just to placate them and promises made would not be fulfilled.
They were not reassured that the main building was going to be a restaurant as they had already seen events booked.
The applicant said all of their bookings were looked after by a management team and assessed, what would the difference be between 60 in their premises or 100 in the village hall. The objector said they didn’t happen as often and would have a very different event plan. The applicant said they took everything seriously and in the short period they had been there, there were 2 weddings at the village hall with drum and bass playing. They wanted to work with the residents.
ED (Objector) raised concerns that the development had significantly changed from the original concept, describing it instead as a high end events venue promoting immersive experiences. They noted marketing materials presenting the site as an events space, which they felt conflicted with the originally understood use.
In response, the applicant clarified that the term “event” could vary in scale, for example, a private dining event could be as small as eight people, while larger events would be different in nature. The applicant explained that “immersive events” referred to experiences where chefs interact with guests, explaining dishes and engaging with customers.
RM (Objector) lived approximately 100 metres from the restaurant area, he supported the previous objections and raised strong concerns about noise and disturbance.
He highlighted that the proposal could allow entertainment until midnight on a regular basis, which would significantly affect the long standing peaceful and quiet nature of the village, where he has lived for 45 years.
He noted that the village hall was previously relocated out of the centre to reduce such impacts, and argued the current proposal is in an unsuitable central village location with limited parking provision.
While not opposed to business activity, he stressed the need for consideration of residents, particularly in a residential area where people expected a reasonable quality of life.
He referenced past community opposition to development in the area and raised concerns about potential impacts on property values, noting difficulty selling a nearby home.
He warned that without strong controls the situation could become unmanageable and disruptive.
In his view, the only way the proposal could be acceptable would be with significantly reduced operating hours (around 8–9pm) and appropriate regulation to mitigate impacts.
Several objectors referred to not getting a coffee invite from the applicant. The Solicitor advised that they were trying to have a collegiate meeting and those comments were not helpful.
Councillor Graham asked if they had experienced noise from the recent lodge events. He replied that he heard a little, but they were not close to it. Their other main concern was the village green and there needed to be proper parking facilities. They were campaigning for a lower speed limit due to travel concerns.
The objector said his concern was about the wider licensed area, the restaurant could be good for the village. It needed to be well managed, permanent houses were not approved due to the noise factor from the village hall. The lodges were then approved, despite appeals.
They had the same concerns back then and the only way it could work would be with better parking. They needed to work collaboratively to make it work; the residents had a right to live in peace and quiet.
The Chair noted at the same time most villages wanted facilities such as a local shop.
The applicant confirmed that the village shop was in planning and would be opening in line with the lodges. The applicant confirmed that the first week they opened, they stocked the shop and then had to throw it away due to lack of custom. He was seeking a local view of what was wanted in the shop and was working with Norfolk food hall for the shop.
In response to the information that the lodges were being run separately, the Licensing Manager asked if the applicant wanted to review the plan to see if that was the appropriate licensed area.
The Licensing Manager confirmed to the Chair that if the licensed area was limited to the restaurant and outside dining area then alcohol would still be able to be served to the lodges. The sales would occur in the bar area and be taken off premises and consumed within the lodge area.
The Solicitor clarified that deregulation for live and recorded music applied only to a smaller, specified area, meaning such music would not be permitted outside of that designated space. It was confirmed that the amended licensed area included the restaurant courtyard and outdoor dining area.
The Solicitor asked whether noise assessments had been carried out for this space; the applicant stated that some decibel readings had been taken, though not by a professional. The applicant confirmed their willingness to undertake further assessments and comply with any requirements to address noise concerns.
The Solicitor asked for further objectors to make their representations but only if there were additional points to be made.
CS (Objector) lived approximately 400 metres away and thanked the applicant for amendments to the licensable areas. Despite this, she raised concerns about noise carrying across the village, even from normal conversation, due to the quiet rural setting. She emphasised that late night external noise was particularly worrying and could impact her family, including young children.
The revised licensable area was shown on the plan on screen for all to see.
SW (Objector) stated that the proposal had significantly escalated from the original plans. He raised concerns about the scale, noting that up to 450 people would be unacceptable given that there was only parking provision for 19 vehicles. He also referenced suggestions that support or funding could be offered to the village hall but noted that nothing has been formally received. He noted that the applicant said that contact had been made with an individual, but any discussions should come via the village hall trustees.
The Chair said those issues were not related to the Licensing application.
CV (Objector) raised concerns about the proposed alcohol sales until midnight and the large capacity of up to 450 people. She noted that most diners typically visit between 6:00–6:30pm, with very few arriving after 9:00pm, suggesting that later hours would encourage drinking rather than dining and could create a late night drinking culture. She questioned the need for late night food and drink provision, given that all lodges had their own kitchen facilities. Safety concerns were highlighted, particularly the risk from the nearby narrow, unlit, and winding roads, which already had a history of accidents. She referenced prior engagement with councillors and highways regarding a 30mph speed limit due to these risks. She pointed out that granting a late night licence would set a precedent for extended closing times. Comparisons to the village hall were rejected, noting that it was primarily used for daytime community activities, with only occasional and infrequent late night events. Overall, she argued the application conflicted with the rural character of the area and was out of keeping with the environment, recommending refusal or, if approved, significantly reduced operating hours.
It was asked whether the licensed area could be amended mid hearing. It was confirmed that it could and the objectors could make limited comments on those amendments if the Sub-Committee were to allow them to.
Councillor Green asked whether the applicant would have any concerns with the amended plan, noting particular issues around the external deck area, which was likely to be used for dining during summer evenings. The objector raised concerns about the proposed hours and the potential for noise to travel from outdoor spaces, especially if customers were still purchasing drinks around midnight.
The Chair sought clarification from the Licensing Manager, who explained that the licensable activity related to the sale of alcohol rather than its consumption. The licence holder would be responsible for managing behaviour on site, including clearing areas, closing spaces, and directing patrons indoors where necessary. Control would be exercised through the permitted hours and licence conditions.
Councillor Graham invited anyone that had spoken previously about the impact to advise whether this would improve with the revised plan.
OS (Objector) said it would not as their main concern was noise from the decking.
The applicant stated that they could monitor and manage the decking area, including bringing people inside as needed, but acknowledged they would not be able to control the wider lodge area. They added that the lodges were intended to be sold as accommodation for guests to stay.
The objector thanked the team at Noko for reviewing and redrawing the plan. It was emphasised that the key concern was how far noise travelled within the village, particularly given the rural and often windy setting. It was suggested that any outdoor activity should be heavily restricted due to the impact of noise and people leaving the premises.
PW objected and agreed with previous concerns, questioning the need to provide alcohol when lodge guests could bring their own. He suggested that restricting licensing to a sensible timeframe would be appropriate and could not see the benefit of remaining open after typical dining hours. While he supported the restaurant in principle, he considered the main issue to be the wider impacts of late night alcohol sales.
Another objector living in a property adjoining the site, highlighted that noise was already clearly audible, recalling that on the launch night he could hear conversations from his garden late at night, and warning that noise levels would likely increase with events such as New Year celebrations. He raised significant personal concerns, noting that his son had complex needs and that consistent sleep was critical to his wellbeing. He explained that disruption could have serious consequences for his family and may force them to relocate.
He also raised concerns relating to the licensing objectives, particularly the protection of children from harm, suggesting this would be compromised if outdoor noise continued late into the evening. Additional concerns included road safety at nearby crossroads with a history of collisions, risks associated with increased traffic and alcohol consumption, and the impact on his son’s independence, such as safely walking to local amenities.
While not seeking to block the development outright, he said there needed to be limits on off sales and expressed concern that granting one aspect of the licence could lead to further expansion over time, particularly given commercial incentives and the applicant’s involvement in wider hospitality activities.
Councillor Graham clarified that they were suggesting that something more acceptable would be to stop serving alcohol earlier. The objector replied that if there wasn’t the after meal drinks opportunity then people would then leave.
The applicant confirmed that they were not trying to be a bar they were a restaurant.
NW (Objector) said this was not a vendetta against the business. She raised that the applicants started the meeting by saying how much they were invested in the local community. However, the price point did not match up with the image they were promoting.
She said that lots of statements were not evidence based, there was no evidence that the venue would not be at capacity regularly Thursday, Friday, Saturday. She highlighted traffic and parking and road safety as it was unlit with pedestrian access on one side of the road only. The very back of their garden backed onto woodland approximately 100m from the back of the lodges. When work was carried out they could hear radio and chats, the noise carried. They had 2 young children and in the summer months there would be noise concerns. The proposed hours and frequency were different to the village hall; mainly as it was every day/night, disturbing local residents who had chosen to live in a peaceful village. She said they would be living with it forever, that was not fair or manageable. Their children were of the age where they could go to the park with friends, but that decision would be impacted if there were more cars/people. Late night drinking could lead to bad language, litter and antisocial behaviour and they didn’t want their children exposed to that in their home. Their peace and safety was being taken away from them. She concluded it was over development in the wrong location placing a strain on the community.
The final objector echoed the previous concerns, highlighting additional public safety issues. They raised concerns about emergency response times to the village, noting past incidents that caused significant damage to a nearby property. They warned that increased activity could lead to people attempting to walk to Beccles along unsafe routes, which would be a recipe for disaster, particularly given police response times. They asked that these safety considerations be taken into account.
The Chair invited everyone to sum up.
There was nothing to add from the Licensing Officer.
There was nothing else to add from the objectors.
The applicant stated that they were committed to working with all parties and suggested that many concerns stemmed from misunderstandings about the proposal. They emphasised that the site was not intended to operate as a 450 capacity wedding venue, but as a bar, restaurant, and café with associated lodges. Late night refreshment was primarily intended to serve lodge guests rather than encourage wider late night drinking.
They stressed that their aim was to provide a high quality dining experience within a well managed venue, not to promote excessive alcohol consumption. The applicant confirmed that lighting would be installed and acknowledged the concerns raised, stating they would take all feedback into consideration.
The Chair advised that should the licence be granted there was always the opportunity for the licence to be reviewed and he hoped that the objectors recognised the time given to listen to all of their views.
The Sub-Committee adjourned to make their decision.
Decision Notice
Mr Alexander Clare has applied for a new premises licence for the Edge at Noko, Lake View, Church Road, Ringsfield, NR34 8NT. 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:
Supply of Alcohol (On and Off the premises)
Sunday to Wednesday 09:00 to 23:00
Thursday to Saturday 09:00 to 00:00
All outdoor sales to begin no earlier than 12 noon and finish at 23:00
New Years Eve until 02:00 New Years Day
Late night refreshments
Thursday to Saturday 23:00 to 00:00
New Years Eve until 02:00 New Years Day
This Sub-Committee has been held as 32 representations against the application had been received from other persons. One representation was received from a responsible authority; this has since been withdrawn following the production of a noise management plan.
The summary of grounds for the remaining objections were that the proposed licensable hours would be inappropriate in a small residential village and could cause crime and disorder and that there was a lack of parking for the numbers proposed, which could endanger public safety. The noise levels would be inappropriate for a small village and especially for young children.
The Sub-Committee first heard from the Licensing Officer, who summarised the report.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the applicant who wished to open a restaurant that would provide local employment opportunities and would be welcomed by and work with the local community. This is an industry that is struggling and this is an opportunity to train people and without the licence the jobs and opportunities would be at risk. They are aware of their professional obligations regarding safety and operating within the law. This was intended to be a high end family establishment with clear supervision, trained staff and Challenge 25 policy in place. They indicated that antisocial behaviour would not be caused by the restaurant.
They had onsite parking and 25 additional parking spaces at the rear as well as parking at each lodge. The 450 capacity limit was due to the fire risk assessment; however they do not ever anticipate reaching this.
The lodges were to be part of a wellness retreat and they were not intended to be used for stag and hen nights. However, it was acknowledged that if a licence was granted then live music would be permitted under the Live Music Act in the entire licensable area.
It became apparent during the meeting that the area applied for was not entirely operated by the applicant and the lodges which were part of the proposed wellness retreat were owned and operated by a separate organisation.
The Sub-Committee then heard from those who made representations in objection to the application. The objectors stated that Ringsfield was a small residential village and that noise travels far and many of them have chosen to live in Ringsfield to raise their families in a tranquil environment. They were concerned that the presence of this venue would lead to a public nuisance due to the noise. This concern had been heightened by the launch event which they claim had caused excessive noise and was reported to Environmental Protection.
There was also concern regarding the lack of parking on site and the fact that this may cause on street parking in a location where it was not suited or on the community green. It was made clear that the applicant did not have permission to use the village hall car park.
The Sub-Committee heard from the neighbours who were particularly concerned as to the effect of the noise on their children impacting on their sleeping and the loss of their garden amenity. Also, they were concerned that the extra traffic may make it less safe for their children.
It became apparent during the meeting that only part of the area applied for was operated by the applicant. The other area was a separate business. A plan was produced showing the area operated by the applicant. Objectors were asked if they still had concerns about the revised area, and while most were still concerned, others made it clear that they were less concerned about the restaurant and more about the wider outdoor 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:
• The licensable area shall be the area edged red on the plan annexed to this decision notice.
• All doors and windows being closed from 20:00, except for access/egress during licensable activities.
• The decking will be cleared of customers by 18:00.
• The volume of any noise generated from the licensable activities shall be controlled such that it is non-intrusive at the boundaries of nearby residential properties.
• A telephone number should be provided to neighbouring residents for any complaints. Any complaints should be investigated as soon as reasonably practicable, and the outcome of the investigation and any corrective action will be recorded and the complaint record should be made available. The complaint records should be kept for a period of 12 months and produced to a licensing officer or licensing enforcement officer or police officer on request.
The licensable and opening hours are granted as applied for:
Supply of Alcohol (On and Off the premises)
Sunday to Wednesday 09:00 to 23:00
Thursday to Saturday 09:00 to 00:00
New Years Eve until 02:00 New Years Day
Late night refreshment
Thursday to Saturday 23:00 to 00:00
New Years Eve until 02:00 New Years Day
Reasons for decision
The Sub-Committee is concerned that permitting licensable activities in the area as originally applied for was completely incompatible with the promotion of the licensing objectives.
Regarding the prevention of crime and disorder, Ringsfield is a small village of 350 people and permitting licensable activities to occur in the entire licensable areas applied for with up to 450 visitors with no public transport is likely to lead to disorder.
In addition, the lack of parking leading to visitors parking on the road is a risk to public safety.
The biggest concern is the public nuisance, Ringsfield is a small, quiet village with retired residents and where young families choose to move to for its tranquillity. The noise from the licensable activities will disrupt the local residents to an unacceptable level and interfere with their use and enjoyment of their premises. In particular it will impact on the children, especially on their sleep.
For the above reasons it was not appropriate to grant a licence for the whole area. For similar reasons the sub-committee did not consider it appropriate to grant a licence for any area outside of the red line on the revised plan as the noise is likely to still cause a public nuisance, in particular to neighbouring properties.
The sub-committee was especially concerned about the noise carrying from the decking. The sub-committee also noted that there was concern regarding the potential for break out noise from people leaving the venue.
Given the representations made and the objections and taking into account the location of the premises, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the licensing objectives could be promoted by the granting of a licence covering the restaurant, café and shop alone as shown edged red on the revised plan, provided that the doors and windows are shut from 20:00 and the decking cleared from 18:00. The reason for the difference is that noise from the decking is more likely to be intrusive than noise from doors and windows, and the decking is in closer proximity to a noise sensitive premises.
In addition, there is a requirement for a condition that the volume of any noise generated from the licensable activities shall be controlled such that it is non-intrusive at the boundaries of nearby residential properties.
The fact that the licensable area is reduced should lead to fewer visitors and less parking overspill, leading to the area being safer for local residents.
The Sub-Committee is of the opinion that these conditions are capable of promoting the licensing objectives and also balance the human rights of the owner to run his business and the residents of the neighbouring premises to enjoy their homes.
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 placed weight in making its decision upon the lack of responses from responsible authorities, and the fact that Environmental Protection who had previously objected had withdrawn their objection following the noise management plan. However, the Sub-Committee is not bound by the responsible authorities and having heard the parties is of the view that the above conditions were required.
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.
The Sub-Committee also took into account the representations from the objectors and whilst it has sympathy for the objectors’ position, the Sub-Committee does feel that the licensing objectives can be promoted subject to the licence as amended.
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 heard regarding planning matters; the granting of this licence does not remove the need for planning permission for any relevant use, and does not in any way imply that planning permission should be granted.
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: 29 April 2026