Agenda item

To determine a licence variation application for Harry’s Meadow Campsite, submitted under the Licensing Act 2003.

Decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing held at Appletree Court, Lyndhurst on 31 March 2025 at 2.00pm.

                                                                                                                                        

 

1.           Parties and their Representatives attending the Hearing

Applicants:

Jesse Sheriff, Applicant’s son

Vivien Sheriff (Applicant, Harry’s Meadow Campsite)

                                                                                                                                        

 

2.           Other Persons attending the Hearing

Council Officers:

Ms Christa Ferguson - Licensing Manager
Philip Torjussen, Licensing Officer

                                                                                                                                        

 

3.           Officers attending to assist the Sub-Committee

Richard Davies – Legal Advisor

Andy Rogers – Clerk

                                                                                                                                        

 

4.           Absence of Parties

At the outset of the hearing it was noted by the Sub-Committee that a number of the parties were absent as set out below:

Objectors:

Those who had indicated that they would not be attending:

Hannah and Ian Downie – Garden Cottage, Queen Street

Hale Parish Council

Those who had not indicated whether they would be attending:

Mark and Helen Clark – Home Farm – Not Replied 

Neil Cruden – Hatchett End, Hatchett Green – Not Replied

                                                                                                                                        

 

5.           Evidence

 

Some absent parties had not indicated whether or not they would be in attendance.  The Sub-Committee considered whether it was necessary in the public interest to adjourn the hearing or to hold the hearing in the absence of those parties.  The Sub-Committee decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence and take into consideration their written representations in reaching its decision.

The Sub Committee considered the application along with the evidence, both written and oral, supplied by the Applicant and all those who had made relevant representations.  In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee has had regard to:

·          The Home Office Guidance issued under section 182of the Licensing Act 2003,

·          The Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy.

·          The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives

·          Relevant Representations presented by all parties

At the hearing, the Sub-Committee carefully listened to all the evidence that was provided, and considered what action, if any, was appropriate for the promotion of the four licensing objectives namely, the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm.

The Council’s Legal Advisor, Mr Davies explained that the purpose of the hearing was to determine an application for a variation to the premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”) in respect of the Harry’s Meadow Campsite, Hale.

In accordance section 35 of the Act, where relevant representations had been made to the Licensing Authority in response to a premises licence application, the Licensing Authority must hold a hearing to consider them.

Having regard to these representations, the Licensing Authority must take such steps as it felt appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives.  The Legal Advisor explained that some of the objections received related to planning considerations, but reminded the Sub–Committee that consideration should relate to the licensable activities and their impact on the 4 licensing objectives only, as set out in the report. Impact on traffic and objections to the existence of the campsite were not relevant to the licensing objectives for the purposes of the Application.

The Licensing Manager outlined the Application.  It was explained that the Application was to vary the premises licence for Harry’s Meadow Campsite.  The site was a camping site which had limited planning permission to operate for 60 days per year.  The current alcohol licence was granted at the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing on 5 September 2022 for the sale of alcohol from Monday to Sunday 17:00hrs to 22:00hrs for 1 to 31 August each year.

The variation sought to extend that permission to July and August each year in line with the extension of the planning permission which had been recently granted.  The site consisted of two large fields bordered by mature trees and bisected by a track.  One side of the track was used for large glamping tents and the other was for additional camping tents. Since the granting of the premises licence in September 2022, the Licensing Authority had not received any complaints, either from the Responsible Authorities or neighbours as a result of the granting of the premises licence.

The licence permitted alcoholic drinks to be sold by a third party from a converted horsebox on the site.  In the same location, awnings and seats were available for campers as well as prepared food, from other food stalls.  The hospitality area was near to the central track at the centre of the site and away from the site boundary.  No change to the current trading hours were requested, which were 5:00 PM till 10:00 PM each day for those camping at the site.

The Licensing Manager pointed out that objectors to the application had raised planning issues relating to the site and explained that only matters pertaining to the licensing objectives under the Licencing Act 2003 may be considered. Four objections had been received regarding to the application; 3 from neighbours and 1 from Hale Parish Council.

The Sub-Committee heard supporting oral evidence from Jesse Sheriff, on behalf of the Applicant, Vivien Sheriff.

In his submission, he explained that the licence variation was being sought to align with the planning permission which had extended the site opening time to two months.

Mr Sheriff referred to each of the 4 licensing objectives in turn.  On Prevention of Crime and Disorder, he pointed out that the existing licence had operated since 2022 without any issues, proving the site was well managed, with no history of disorder.  A licensed controlled bar prevented excessive personal alcohol consumption which could otherwise lead to disorderly behaviour.  Trained staff enforced ID checks using the Challenge 25 responsible service, ensuring alcohol was managed properly.

Mr Sheriff stated that because guest numbers were being reduced by 50% in line with the planning permission, and the size of the usable site had also been reduced, crime or disorder was now less likely.

On Public Safety, Mr Sheriff explained that a licensed bar ensured controlled alcohol distribution, reducing the risks of excessive drinking.  Security measures and staff training ensured a safe environment, with clear emergency procedures already in place.

The site layout had been adjusted to place guests further away from objecting households, (about 500 metres) while maintaining strict noise controls.

On Prevention of Public Nuisance, Mr Sheriff stated that the same strict rules from the August licence arrangements remained in place, with no amplified music, use of noise monitoring, and enforcement of quiet hours.  No large disruptive groups were allowed, the site already met all noise and nuisance regulations (also the planning extensions had been approved after reviewing these concerns).

On Protection of Children from Harm, the bar followed strict ID policies and ensured alcohol was only served to those of the legal age.  Mr Sheriff pointed out that a controlled bar was far safer than allowing unregulated drinking, where alcohol could be accessed by minors.

He reiterated that the site was now smaller, with fewer people, with a lower impact than when the August licence was granted. It was emphasised that extending the licence to July did not change any operational procedures or risk, it simply aligned with the planning permission.

Mr Sheriff stated that the local public house supported the licensing and planning applications.

He went on to say that rules and management remained the same and there was no additional disruption or negative impacts.

After his statement, Mr Sheriff was asked by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee to respond to the allegation in one of the objections that in previous years, local residents from the surrounding area were drinking on site, in contravention of the licence, which stipulated that the premises were not open to the general public and that only campers may use the bar during licensed hours.  Mr Sheriff explained that they had invited local residents and friends to see the site and were served drinks at no charge.  The Chairman double-checked to confirm that no sale of alcohol to those persons took place, and Mr Sheriff confirmed this.

The Sub-Committee then heard a statement read out on behalf of Hale Parish Council, which was received after the agenda pack had been published and was made available to all parties to the hearing in the previous week and published on the Council’s website.  Hale Parish Council had already objected to the application, and this further submission was largely based on planning grounds, which were not relevant to the licensing objectives.  In response to the statement, the Chairman asked Mr Sheriff whether he intended to comply with the conditions mentioned in the statement, to which Mr Sheriff said they would do so.

                                                                                                                                        

 

6.           Decision of the Sub-Committee

The application is GRANTED on the following terms and conditions (as applied for):

To extend the current licence period of one month (1 to 31 August) to two months (1 July to 31 August) each year. (No change to the hours that alcohol is sold each day.)

                                                                                                                                        

 

7.           Reasons for the Decision

The Sub-Committee reviewed the main areas of concern raised by those objecting to the Variation Application, which included the following:

·      Assertions that it was impractical to run the bar only for campers and that non-campers had been drinking alcohol on site;

·      Potential for public nuisance from noise and from external lighting;

·      Fears over potential disorder;

·      Concerns over increased fire risks perceived to be associated with alcohol consumption, and ‘intoxicated drivers’.

The Sub-Committee found that the objectors’ submissions were based largely on unsubstantiated fears and general unrelated concerns regarding pressures on the surrounding rural area, and lacked verifiable evidence relevant to the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee heard that all the Responsible Authorities had been consulted on the application, and no comments or objections had been received.

The Sub-Committee also noted that since the granting of the licence in September 2022, no complaints had been received about the licensable activities on the site.

The Sub-Committee was also satisfied with the Mr Sheriff’s explanation regarding an occurrence where local residents and friends had been invited to visit the site and had been offered alcoholic drinks, but no sales had taken place.

The Sub-Committee noted that the guest numbers on the site had been reduced by 50% and efforts had been made to move the guests further from objectors’ houses to reduce noise. Mr Sheriff had given full details of measures in place to manage safe alcohol sales, control noise and minimise local impact.

The Sub-Committee was mindful that there was a presumption in favour of granting an application unless there was evidence which undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives.

Due to insufficient verifiable evidence, the Sub-Committee was not persuaded by the objectors’ submissions that the application to extend the licence to allow the sale of alcohol on the site for a further month would adversely affect the promotion of the licensing objectives, and they therefore found no sufficient cause to prevent the granting of the application.

Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the appropriate steps for the promotion of the licensing objectives was to grant the application, subject to the conditions set out in the application.

Should there be any concerns in the future regarding operation of the premises, the Licensing Act 2003 provides a statutory mechanism for any person to call the premises licence in for review.

Date:   31 March 2025

Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman:   Cllr Steve Clarke

                                                                                                                                        

 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Decision notified to interested parties on 3 April 2025