Berney Arms

[JennyMorgan]

Having reread the licence application as posted by Tom I am left wondering as to what customer base the applicant was hoping to attract? Moving music into a marquee is not likely to reduce the toxic, sub sonic boom-boom by a measurable amount. We had many of these same issues in regard to a music venue on the marshes at Oulton Broad. A marquee was tried and it certainly was not the answer. In my view the application for Berney was ill considered, irresponsible even, and the outcome entirely predictable. 

[BroadsAuthority]

16 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

 

Hi Tom,

Having just watched the 2hr meeting I can tell you that those times are now incorrect and were heavily amended during the meeting with the agreement of the applicant. Angie O'Connor who was present at the meeting should be able to provide the fully revised list of times that were considered as part of the application.

Hi @EastCoastIPAIPA,

Thanks for the message and yes I am aware that the applicants amended the licensing request during the meeting. As mentioned in the post above though these are the times and requests in the initial application of which the Authority was invited to formally comment on (and subsequently objected to).

For further detail on why the licensing board denied the application despite changes to the hours requested it would be better to speak to deciding representatives on the licensing board, or Broadland District Council, directly.

Best,

Tom

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi @EastCoastIPAIPA,

Thanks for the message and yes I am aware that the applicants amended the licensing request during the meeting. As mentioned in the post above though these are the times and requests in the initial application of which the Authority was invited to formally comment on (and subsequently objected to).

For further detail on why the licensing board denied the application despite changes to the hours requested it would be better to speak to deciding representatives on the licensing board, or Broadland District Council, directly.

Best,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Whilst the above is true, it is very misleading because the original application, which was commented on during the meeting, looks nothing like the final agreed hours being applied for, which Angie was asked to make final closing comments on, as were the rest of the representatives, before the final decision. Off course it could be argued that it serves some purpose to keep representing the some what outrageous and out of date original application hours, rather than the more suitably modified and agreed hours.

I believe the revised hours were not the main reason for refusal of the license and by repeating the original application hours only serves to illicit responses such as those shown by some of the recent posters.

The application was refused on three primary grounds, those being still some concerns over how the level of noise would be controlled given the location, health and safety given the site location  and the inexperience of the DPS to run such a site in such a remote location.

Republishing the out of date application hours is very  incongruous and serves to promote a predicted back lash in my opinion.

For the record the applicant modified the live music and alcohol hours from 6am down to the more usual 11am, with the cafe opening for breakfast from 6am with background music which is not subject to licensing. In addition moving all outdoors live music inside by 10pm and ceasing it inside at mid night. There were also other overall reductions in opening hours. They also clarified that it was not the intention to have any rave type music events, but instead it was the intention for folk music etc. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

If the applicant considers that a marquee is required then why not re-open the pub? An ill considered application, in my opinion.

 

[BroadsAuthority]

24 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Hi Tom,

Whilst the above is true, it is very misleading because the original application, which was commented on during the meeting, looks nothing like the final agreed hours being applied for, which Angie was asked to make final closing comments on, as were the rest of the representatives, before the final decision. Off course it could be argued that it serves some purpose to keep representing the some what outrageous and out of date original application hours, rather than the more suitably modified and agreed hours.

I believe the revised hours were not the main reason for refusal of the license and by repeating the original application hours only serves to illicit responses such as those shown by some of the recent posters.

The application was refused on three primary grounds, those being still some concerns over how the level of noise would be controlled given the location, health and safety given the site location  and the inexperience of the DPS to run such a site in such a remote location.

Republishing the out of date application hours is very  incongruous and serves to promote a predicted back lash in my opinion.

For the record the applicant modified the live music and alcohol hours from 6am down to the more usual 11am, with the cafe opening for breakfast from 6am with background music which is not subject to licensing. In addition moving all outdoors live music inside by 10pm and ceasing it inside at mid night. There were also other overall reductions in opening hours. They also clarified that it was not the intention to have any rave type music events, but instead it was the intention for folk music etc. 

 

Thanks for the feedback ECIPA,

As suggested, the full meeting is able to be viewed on YouTube if individuals' wish to find out in more depth regarding the changes to the application.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYHn1boH34A

Our posts above were relaying why the objection was lodged in the first place. The fact that this was the initial application which we were asked to formally comment on has been made clear in the posts above. The multiple amendments by the applicants to the licensing during the meeting was in itself a consideration for the licensing panel, as viewers can see from the link above. I will ask the mod team to edit the previous post which references the initial licensing hours to make this clear.

Finally, we should point out that the Authority wholeheartedly welcomes further dialogue with the applicant(s) if they require assistance in resubmitting an application in the future.

Information provided here in response to questions was intended to provide further context that has been missed out from the EDP article, not to promote a backlash. At the risk of being drawn into a debate, we will refrain from commenting further on this forum topic any further. If you have any further questions on this matter please submit a contact form and the relevant staff member will be happy to help: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-form

Best,

Tom

 

 

[Meantime]

14 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

If the applicant considers that a marquee is required then why not re-open the pub? An ill considered application, in my opinion.

 

The pub itself suffered fire damage a few years back. The cafe is probably ready to open, or could be ready to open much sooner, although very much more limited in the number of covers they are able to provide. The applicant is looking to hold occasional boating regattas which would increase the numbers in attendance during the event and they would accommodate that in a marquee.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Re the 'on the hoof' modified application, all very well, but the original application clearly and understandably set the alarm bells ringing and the Authority was, in my opinion, right to object. Folk music, ancient and modern, is one of my great passions but I have to suggest that the genre of the music is not the issue, even folk music can be excessively  amplified. A well worded business plan by the applicant would be appreciated. The raves at Beauchamp were great for those of us who attended but I really wouldn't wish to see them transferred to Berney. Okay, the applicant has said 'no raves', but I'm not convinced.

[NorfolkNog]

10 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Finally, we should point out that the Authority wholeheartedly welcomes further dialogue with the applicant(s) if they require assistance in resubmitting an application in the future.

That is a very telling point. If you are applying for a pub/alcohol licence then it makes sense to do your homework, engage with the appropriate authorities and the police. If the powers that be are on board your chance of success will be much better. 

 

[Helian]

I suspect the initially applied for hours rather set the tone and thoughts (predisposition) of the committee Members. Even if subsequently modified, the damage was perhaps already done.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[JennyMorgan]

55 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

The pub itself suffered fire damage a few years back. The cafe is probably ready to open, or could be ready to open much sooner, although very much more limited in the number of covers they are able to provide.

The pub has been closed for five regrettable years now, plenty of time to make good that fire damage. Up to now everything has been done on the cheap, both the cafe and the application itself.

[NorfolkNog]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

done on the cheap

Head and nail again there JM - oh and before anyone says it, an expensive renovation probably wouldn't stack up with the proposed return but someone with knowledge and enthusiasm (like CC) could do something with it. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

As I've said if they used the language to the committee that they used on Facebook they would  have done themselves no favours.

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

As I've said if they used the language to the committee that they used on Facebook they would  have done themselves no favours.

And if you watch the video that Tom provided the link for you will find out that they didn't. Those genuinely interested in the proposal could do worse than watch the video to find out more. One of the representatives for the applicant was very inexperienced in dealing with bureaucracy and the other was appointed at very late notice and was doing their best to play catch up and was trying to reach compromise. I suspect if they had been involved from the start it may have had a better chance of success.

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

One of the representatives for the applicant was very inexperienced in dealing with bureaucracy and the other was appointed at very late notice and was doing their best to play catch up and was trying to reach compromise.

Which takes me back to my point that the application was done on the cheap. To that I would add an apparent and sad lack of professionalism by the applicant.

[Meantime]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

Which takes me back to my point that the application was done on the cheap. To that I would add an apparent lack of professionalism by the applicant.

You have to face facts. That site is never going to be a money spinner. If it is ever to reopen it will be on the cheap. The pub needs a lot of work done on it. It would need someone to take it on who is going to buy materials and do a lot of the work themselves to get it straight. No one is going to invest heavily in the pub or the site because they won't live long enough to recover the money. Cheap and cheerful doesn't have to mean dangerous or that the site has to stay closed forever.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Cheap and cheerful  doesn't apply to food.If they , as they suggest provide  food.Food safety  and health  and safety  are very strict. No cutting corners and its far from cheap.

[Bytheriver]

8 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Cheap and cheerful  doesn't apply to food.If they , as they suggest provide  food.Food safety  and health  and safety  are very strict. No cutting corners and its far from cheap.

I hadn't even got as far thinking about the good old Food Hygiene Regulations.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Both of which are very strict, and if you dont meet  standards.You will be unable to trade.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

You have to face facts. That site is never going to be a money spinner. If it is ever to reopen it will be on the cheap. The pub needs a lot of work done on it.

All of which was repeatedly said to me when I took on the Waveney Inn at Burgh St Peter, nearly fifty years ago. My biggest regret was in working with people that failed to support my vision, and the fact that several of them died leaving me in the lurch! The point is though that we did throw money at it, did employ suitable professionals, did make it work, made it attractive to other investors who in turn allowed myself and others to make a very nice return on our investment, which was the main reason my fellow investors wanted out. Pub of the Year for every year that I was there, a pub that was regarded as being in the back of beyond. That aside, the place was a dump when we took it on, look at it now. If the job is done well, and properly, then I have no doubt that Berney could succeed. 

[Meantime]

37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

All of which was repeatedly said to me when I took on the Waveney Inn at Burgh St Peter, nearly fifty years ago. My biggest regret was in working with people that failed to support my vision, and the fact that several of them died leaving me in the lurch! The point is though that we did throw money at it, did employ suitable professionals, did make it work, made it attractive to other investors who in turn allowed myself and others to make a very nice return on our investment, which was the main reason my fellow investors wanted out. Pub of the Year for every year that I was there, a pub that was regarded as being in the back of beyond. That aside, the place was a dump when we took it on, look at it now. If the job is done well, and properly, then I have no doubt that Berney could succeed. 

But the reality is you cannot compare The Waveney Inn, or even The Locks Inn with The Berney Arms. At least both have a public right of access to them by land, that doesn't exist for The Berney, other than for the owners.

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

But the reality is you cannot compare The Waveney Inn, or even The Locks Inn with The Berney Arms. At least both have a public right of access to them by land, that doesn't exist for The Berney, other than for the owners.

Which in turn is part of its attraction. The railway runs past, the rain even stops if you want it to, has ideal moorings for the big boats from Brundal, many of whom would like somewhere to go. After all there is no room for them at the Waveney and Geldeston is inaccessible. B&B has to be the key at Berney, captive customers they would be too! The pub could easily become a must visit destination, with a little imagination & the right personalities, perhaps even an in-house river bus operating from Gt Yarmouth & St Olaves. 

[Vaughan]

I remember it used to be supplied by river, with a launch from Yarmouth.

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

You have to face facts. That site is never going to be a money spinner. If it is ever to reopen it will be on the cheap. The pub needs a lot of work done on it. It would need someone to take it on who is going to buy materials and do a lot of the work themselves to get it straight. No one is going to invest heavily in the pub or the site because they won't live long enough to recover the money. Cheap and cheerful doesn't have to mean dangerous or that the site has to stay closed forever.

Which brings us back to square one with the possible reincarnation of the original planning application for re-development.

Fred

[NorfolkNog]

38 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

At least both have a public right of access to them by land, that doesn't exist for The Berney, other than for the owners.

That's true although the track to the Locks is pretty rough and often impassable in winter when it's flooded. Car parking space is very limited too. But I take your point. 

[Cheesey69]

In this day and age, I can’t see it working. 
Even when I used to hire twice a year we never had more than a couple of meals out due to lack of mooring and shear cost. 
Same goes for drinking. Way cheaper to buy in and get a takeaway. 
Craft now have excellent galleys and fridges that stay cold. Eating in saves many pounds. 
I think it would still be trading if it was viable. 
As was said, if you look at the bridge inn, car park packed