Manor Barn set to lose its license

The review of the license had been instigated by the District Council's Environmental Protection Department as they felt that the License Holder (Mr Robert Camping) had failed to promote the licensing objective: the Prevention of Public Nuisance.

In a room packed with about 50-60 interested parties, Council Officers summarised the "sustained and continuing problems" and explained how, in spite of a number of contacts, warnings and advice, Bob Camping had failed to take action and respond to any wake-up calls: "Basic things didn't happen, which is of great concern," explained David Fitzgerald, Principal Environmental Health Officer.

Instead of attending the Hearing, or sending a representative, Mr Camping had provided a short statement which was read out at the beginning of the meeting. This explained why he had chosen not to attend and also said "I am fully aware of the heartache and disappointment that I have created."

Chairman of the Licensing Sub-Committee, Councillor Bob Ayer, said that he regretted that Mr Camping was not present and Council Officers also expressed disappointment during the meeting that they were unable to ask Mr Camping a number of questions.

The picture of Mr Camping which was gradually built up over the 4-hour hearing, from a range of sources, was very revealing.

Senior Council officers David Fitzgerald and Gill Stevens presented a catalogue of irregularities and misdemeanours by Mr Camping at the Buriton Manor Barn venue including:

• "Sustained problems over a number of months involving 36 separate dates in a six month period" (9^th May to 29^th October 2015) which they had found to be "quite shocking"
• "Regular problems with noise, regular problems with patrons and impacts on the parish church"
• "The extent and volume of noise reported in complaints corroborates everything that Council Officers have seen. Huge numbers of people have been affected"
• As well as noise from amplified music there was "a lack of control when patrons leave" and problems with "litter and glassware"
• Mr Fitzgerald had witnessed anti-social and rowdy behaviour and patrons in Buriton High Street "too drunk to walk"
• He had also heard loud music when away from the premises which was "totally unacceptable" and "not fair on residents every weekend"
• On another Saturday night visit Council officers had "found the barn doors wide open and extremely loud music. At 11.30 people left the premises and moved to the front of the church area causing a noise nuisance; one patron turned a car radio on loudly to provide music to allow the party to continue. At midnight there were still about 40 guests shouting, drinking and talking in front of the village church - leaving beer bottles to be found by church-goers in the morning."

The Council officers also explained that "it would not necessarily be expensive to put some things right":

• "basic control of the site was not being followed, the main doors were not being closed and noise limiters were not being correctly used"
• During visits in July, Council Officers had found the noise limiter "showing bright red because the noise was too  loud" and on another occasion had found "the premises had set up the noise limiter incorrectly and the band could play as loud as they liked"
• Even after meetings with the Council's Planning Enforcement Team, events were taking place on days of the week which were not permitted by Planning Conditions
• "Mr Camping seemed to have no awareness of planning restrictions and was operating in excess of them"; "there was a lack of understanding by Mr Camping and poor management"; "things just didn't happen" said Mr Fitzgerald.

Mr Fitzgerald also explained that "problems continued even after Mr Camping was served the notice that his License was being called in for review in November: not just one-offs, but sustained problems later in November, December and January."

An example described in some detail was a 'Black Tie' event on 14^th November 2015 in aid of the Liberty Foundation. Papers before the Councillors showed that this event was being advertised by Mr Camping as continuing until 1am: "a clear breach of both the premises licence and planning conditions."  Council Officers felt that the fact that this event was advertised even after Mr Camping had been warned in previous months "showed a lack of understanding and any desire to control things".

Licensing Officer Gill Stevens had then written to Mr Camping on 12^th November, "after a number of conversations", making it clear that the 'Black Tie' event, even if re-arranged as a private party, would be contrary to planning conditions. Mr Fitzgerald explained at the Hearing:

• "The event took place and had a significant impact on local residents. This was shocking"
• A number of District Council officers visited the premises that evening and "identifiable tracks of music could be heard 503 yards away at 11.30pm" 
• "Instead of going quieter after that, the noise was ramped up"
• "This showed the intent of the person owning the site to carry on even with all the advice and notification of a License Review".

The officers felt that Mr Camping had shown "an appalling track record of compliance", "a track record of poor performance" and a "total disregard for the terms of his License and for the requirements of the Licensing Act".

Ms Stevens reiterated an extract from her report to the Hearing that Mr Camping "does not recognise his responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003 of running a business. He does not have regard for his neighbours or consider their needs under the licensing system with a view to the prevention of public nuisance."

In response to a question, Mr Fitzgerald explained that the District Council had also commenced prosecution proceedings against Mr Camping for his breaches of planning conditions.

Other participants in the Hearing noted that:

• none of the complaints or evidence had been challenged by Mr Camping
• that he seemed to have a total disregard for regulations (planning and licensing) and had ignored letters and advice from Council Officers, "adopting a contemptuous approach to East Hampshire District Council's officers" and
• that the church, immediately adjacent to Buriton Manor Barn, was a public resource, a place for prayers, for quiet contemplation, for grieving and for solemn occasions. It was unfortunate that relationships with a neighbour were "causing so much upset and pain amongst the congregation".

It was reported that "a number of wedding couples had also fallen victim to Mr Camping" with some of them creating a special Facebook page to share their problems and information. "Some believe that they have been lied to repeatedly," explained Gary Grant.

Jason Ledwith, who had been due to marry Claire Moulder in Buriton Manor Barn in March, explained to the Councillors that they had fallen in love with the venue when they had seen it but, having heard about all the problems, he  now felt that effects on residents were unacceptable. Although the couple stand to lose thousands of pounds he felt that the people of Buriton shouldn't be expected to take any more.

David Coppini, a father of another bride-to-be, estimated that 58 couples were affected by Mr Camping's problems and that Mr Camping was holding about £200,000 of deposits.

After an adjournment to consider their decision, the Councillors retuned to give their verdict.

Their statement stated that "it is clear from the evidence that local lives have been and are being blighted by activities at the Manor Barn" and that "there is an extensive amount of consistent evidence that leads us to believe that there has been a failure by Mr Camping to promote the licensing objective which aims to prevent public nuisance."

They considered that "Mr Camping has shown very little ability or willingness to comply with the existing conditions regulating the site, whether that be under the licensing or planning regimes."

The Councillors referred to Home Office guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 which states at paragraph 11.23 that "where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence."

Applying this guidance, the sub-committee considered that the appropriate remedial action was to revoke the premises licence.  The applicant, responsible authorities and other interested parties have the right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of receiving official notification of the decision from the Licensing Authority.

The full decision notice can be found as the ?Printed Decision? on the District Council's website via: http://easthants.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=1955

The full report (134 pages) with evidence for the Councillors to consider is also available via the same website as: "Agenda reports pack".