New Forest Borough Council
Councillors:
48
Wards:
28
Committees:
14
Meetings (2026):
67
Meetings (2025):
80
Meeting
Licensing Sub-Committee - New Forest
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 25th August 2026
10:00 AM
Tuesday, 25th August 2026
10:00 AM
End:
Tuesday, 25th August 2026
2:00 PM
Tuesday, 25th August 2026
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
25 Aug 2026
25 Aug 2026
Location:
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Council Chamber - Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7PA
Meeting Attendees
Officer
Solicitor
Richard Davies
In attendance
Officer
Licensing Compliance Officer
Peter Donelan
In attendance
Officer
Licensing Manager
Gemma Devine
Licensing Manager
In attendance
Officer
Interim Assistant Director of Legal Services
Jamie Hollis
Expected
Officer
Service Manager - Environment and Regulation
Joanne McClay
Expected
Officer
Democratic Services Officer
Andy Rogers
In attendance
Agenda
1
Election of Chairman
To elect a Chairman for the meeting.
Minutes
Cllr S Clarke was elected Chairman of the Sub-Committee.
2
Declarations of Interest
To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item. The nature of the interest must also be specified.
Minutes
There were none.
3
Application for the Variation of a Premises Licence for Sandy Balls Holiday Park/Estate, Godshill, Fordingbridge, SP6 2JZ.
To determine a licence application for a variation to the existing premises licence at Sandy Balls Holiday Park/Estate, as submitted under the Licensing Act 2003 by Away Resorts Ltd.
Attachments:
- Document Report 17 Aug 2026
- Document Appendix 1 17 Aug 2026
- Document Appendix 2 17 Aug 2026
- Document Appendix 3 17 Aug 2026
- Document Appendix 4 17 Aug 2026
- Document Appendix 5 17 Aug 2026
Minutes
At the commencement of the hearing, it was noted that one objector, Claudia Weis, was absent. With all other parties being present, the Sub-Committee decided to proceed with the hearing in their absence. Claudia Weis arrived in time to give her evidence.
Evidence
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 182 of the Licensing
Act 2003 (“s.182 Guidance”),
• The Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy.
• The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives
• Relevant Representations presented by all parties.
Sub-Committee 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”) and, in accordance
with 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.
The Licensing Manager outlined the Application.
The Application by Away Resorts Ltd, was to vary the premises licence as follows:
• Variation of Licensed Plans:
·To permit a mobile bar to be situated in an extended outdoor swimming pool area (‘the extended area’).
• Permission for the sale of alcohol in the extended area between 10:00hrs to 22:00hrs each day for consumption on the premises.
· Permission for films indoors and outdoors by:
(i)removing the restriction that films can only be shown between 1st March to 30th September.
(ii)increase the numbers of times films are permitted outdoors between 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs each day to four times a week (previously twice a week).
(iii)increase the hours for indoor films from 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs daily, to 10:00hrs to 23:00hrs daily.
If the variation application is approved, to then remove the condition restricting outdoor films at Annex 2 of the existing licence (the last condition under “Prevention of Public Nuisance”).
The Applicant’s representative, Mr Wallsgrove, cited s.182 Guidance in emphasising to the Sub-Committee that its decision on the Application must be evidence based, rather than onspeculation. He also pointed out that no objections had been made by the responsible statutory authorities, (i.e. Police, Fire & Rescue Authority, Environmental Health etc.), nor had those authorities suggested any amendments to the application. He also pointed out the Sub-Committee’s duty to treat the responsible authorities as expert sources of advice on the licensing objectives when assessing the Application. He submitted that significant weight should be attached to the absence of representations from the responsible authorities in this context.
Mr Wallsgrove explained that the outdoor cinema had been in operation for the last 9 years and referred to the reference to complaints in the Licensing Manager’s report. Whilst the report stated that 2 complaints had been made within that period about the cinema. he clarified that Sandy Balls was not formally aware of such complaints and therefore the complaints were unsubstantiated. He asserted that the absence of objection from the Environmental Health Officer to the variations was reliable evidence to show that it would have no negative impact on the licensing objectives.
Mr Wallsgrove however indicated that although the Application sought permission for 4 films per week, the extension of the indoor film hours, and the new bar at the pool until 10.00pm, it did not mean in practice that there would be 4 films shown every week for 52 weeks per annum, nor that there would be people by the pool until 10.00pm every day. He explained that the Application was intended primarily for the peak season and that it was to provide flexibility, particularly at peak times. Similarly, the pool would, for the vast majority of time continue to normally close at 6.00pm but again the Application sought flexibility at peak times. Mr Wallsgrove also asserted that Sandy Balls was the only Away Resorts park in the country that had restrictions on the number of times outdoor films could be shown per week.
Mr Wallsgrove again cited s.182 Guidance in respect of the Sub-Committee’s duty to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefit, and made reference to the negative impacts on the hospitality industry of the pandemic and other factors. Whilst he pointed out that the licensing objectives took precedence over business concerns, he emphasised again that the statutory responsible authorities had made no representations.
Mr Wallsgrove also pointed out that Sandy Balls guests were already able to purchase drinks and take them to the pool area under the current arrangements, and the Application for the bar at the pool was intended to improve convenience and customer experience. He claimed the addition of the bar at the pool area would create additional supervision of the area, in addition to the lifeguarding already in place at the pool.
He went on to explain that none of the proposed changes were designed to increase the number of guests at the holiday park; rather it was about delivering the best customer experience and to sustain customer interest and economic viability of the holiday park.
Mr Wallsgrove claimed that the effect of the Application would not increase the numbers at the pool consuming alcohol and therefore there would be no impact on the licensing objectives. He stated that outdoor noise would be monitored by both the management team and the supervisor at the bar, to ensure there was no likelihood that nearest residents were disturbed.
Mr Wallsgrove highlighted that the few complaints made to the holiday park and Environmental Health were in relation to when there was amplified music outside, which he conceded was more of an issue for management control. However he emphasised that none of the complaints were in relation to the outdoor cinema or outside drinking, which were the subject of the current Application.
In conclusion, Mr Wallsgrove submitted that the Licensing Act was intended to be a permissive instrument to remove regulatory burdens from responsible operators, and he pointed out that this approach was protected by the ability for anybody at any time to apply for a review of the premises licence if granting the variation had a negative impact on the licensing objectives. He said that whilst there was no current evidence, in the ‘incredibly unlikely’ event that evidence is provided of an adverse impact on the licensing objectives, it can be brought before the Licensing Manager – but not today. The Licensing Authority should be able to trust the licensee.
In reply to a question on continuity of knowledge of any issues across shifts, Mr Wallsgrove explained that a log was kept of complaints and their outcomes, but repeated that those complaints that had been received were in relation to amplified music, which was not relevant to the variation Application being considered.
In response to an objector’s question concerning noise complaints allegedly made to the Applicant on the dates of 20 and 25 July, 3,7,8 and 10 August Mr Wallsgrove pointed out that these were not mentioned in the Licensing Manager’s report and no evidence had been presented, so he could not reply on specific dates but stated that these complaints would normally be logged by the premises. He said that that a noise complaint had been received ‘this weekend’, but that music wasn’t coming from Sandy Balls and Environmental Health also confirmed this. He stated that when complaints were received, there was engagement and complaints were logged and proactively dealt with.
In response to a request from the Chairman on the issue of the rules governing amplified music, the Sub-Committee’s legal adviser briefly explained the existing deregulation of legislation around regulated entertainment including live amplified and recorded music involving an audience of fewer than 500 persons, in many instances there was no licence required for such entertainment between 08.00am and 11.00pm.
The Chairman of the Sub-Committee further clarified several times that amplified music was not part of the Application and therefore not relevant to the hearing. In response to a related question, Mr Wallsgrove confirmed that the capacity of the park was approximately 1000 persons, but much fewer than 500 people would be taking part in the relevant activities at any one time.
Objectors continued to raise questions relating to amplified music, but the Chairman reminded the hearing that the subject was not relevant to the Application being considered and that questions should address, and be relevant to, the objections raised against the issues in the Application.
In responding to a question, Mr Wallsgrove stated that no substantiated complaints had been received by the park relating to noise from the outdoor cinema. Also in response to a question, Mr Wallsgrove explained that there would not be live amplified music at the pool, although the premises licence did already permit regulated entertainment both indoors and outdoors until midnight.
There was further questioning from the Sub-Committee on noise measuring equipment, and Mr Wallsgrove confirmed that the Applicant had a decibel level (‘dB’) monitor but explained that, whilst it was a good measure to have in place, they were not in his view sophisticated enough to be able to assess properly the entire impact on local residents. He reiterated that there had not been a substantiated complaint in the last 9 years the cinema had been operating. On being asked about the set dB measurement levels, Mr Wallsgrove estimated it was 84dB. However he pointed out that there was a potential for noise nuisance below this level depending on the type of noise. He added that input would be needed for the Environmental Health Officer to set limits.
The Sub-Committee also questioned whether the Applicant was aware of the Verderers’ rules about tranquillity of the area and whether the Applicant was willing to try and comply with that as far as is reasonably practicable. In response, Mr Wallsgrove explained that the park must not create a public nuisance because it had to work within the law and comply with the Licensing Act and the Environmental Protection Act, or Environmental Health would investigate and consider taking steps.
In answer to the Sub-Committee’s question on how the Applicant measured and limited the number of entertainment participants to keep under 500, Mr Wallsgrove explained that the outside events were self-controlling in terms of numbers, as an outside cinema event was unlikely to attract more than 100 people. There was a significant number of facilities on site and each entertainment event would not attract anything like 500 people. Staff were not counting people in and out as the numbers did not require it.
He went on to say that Sandy Balls ensured that the correct number of staff were present to ensure health and safety, and such assessments were made in advance of events.
An objector stated that they had been refused a copy of Sandy Balls’ Noise Management Plan (‘NMP’) for the site and, even though a member of staff at the park had offered to share the NMP this had never been forthcoming. Mr Wallsgrove explained that there is no legal obligation for the Applicant to disclose the NMP but if this had indeed been offered then it could be provided.
From the objectors, the Sub-Committee heard from the Chairman of Godshill Parish Council, Cllr Fell, who addressed the Sub-Committee in support of its objection and on behalf of the community.
Cllr Fell reported that the Parish Council shared the view of many residents as set out in its submission that the proposed variation would have a significant detrimental impact on their enjoyment of their homes and the surrounding forest for a substantial part of the year.
Cllr Fell explained that Godshill was within the National Park Authority tranquillity mapping area, and residents expected to live a peaceful environment as part of their quality of life. However, persistent noise associated with the Sandy Balls Centre had undermined that expectation. One resident had made 6 noise complaints to Sandy Balls in less than a month.
Cllr Fell reported that when residents had complained to Environmental Health, they had received no response for over a month, meaning there was no opportunity to measure the noise level at the time it was being experienced.
The Parish Council questioned whether the licence was being operated effectively. The Parish Council noted that the existing licence stated: ‘The licence holder will assess the likelihood of any impact on any noise from the premises on neighbours from time to time and implement such other measures as considered necessary or as agreed in writing with the environmental health officer. The licence holder will continue to liaise with neighbours when this is considered appropriate’.
The Parish Council asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether either adequate and effective assessment of noise impact was taking place. The Sub-Committee felt it had addressed these points with Mr Wallsgrove earlier in the meeting.
The Parish Council was concerned that permitting alcohol sales in the pool area until 10.00pm could lead to increased outdoor noise from talking, activity and light pollution later into the evening, particularly affecting residents living within a short distance of the pool area both outside and inside the site. This would have an impact during the summer months when residents had their windows open or when residents were sitting in their gardens. The Parish Council therefore asked the Sub-Committee to consider what measures or conditions taking into account the location, were necessary to ensure that granting the variation did not give rise to public nuisance.
The Parish Council felt that increasing the film permissions when added to existing events, could add to the cumulative number of outdoor activities over an 8 month period, and asked the Sub-Committee not to look at this Application in isolation but the total impact.
Cllr Fell made the point that the stated finishing time of 11.00pm for activities would in reality be exceeded due to the noise of people leaving the area later than this time.
Concerns were also expressed about unnecessary light pollution in a rural area and impact on residents and wildlife. The effects of noise due to the topography of the area was also pointed out.
Cllr Fell submitted that the new proposals appeared to be an attempt to increase the attractiveness of Sandy Balls at the expense of the local residents and that the number of objections and representations the Parish Council had received from residents demonstrated the concerns about noise which were not isolated and confined to a single property, but indicated a wider and persistent issue affecting residents across Godshill, whether they were reported to Environmental Health or not.
The Parish Council maintained the view that visitors chose to take holidays in the area because of its special qualities and rural character and therefore questioned whether the extension of outdoor films and other entertainment was compatible with this. Whilst they also recognised Sandy Balls’ commercial interests, they argued that these must be balanced against legitimate interests of permanent neighbouring residents and the protection of the rural and protected environment in which the business operated. It therefore requested robust and enforceable conditions to protect the neighbourhood.
Ms Weis, objector, asked to read a statement from a Lisa Grabsch whom it was claimed had made representations within the timeframe but their letter had not been included in the agenda pack. The Chairman asked the Licensing Manager to check if this representation had been received.
The Licensing Manager reported that only 2 representations had been received within the consultation timeframe and these were from the Parish Council and Ms Weis, and not from Lisa Grabsch. Cllr Fell and Ms Weis gave details of when the submission from Lisa Grabsch had been sent and the Licensing Manager confirmed none had been received with the details provided.
(The Sub-Committee later noted that a Notice of Hearing had been issued on 10 August 2026 to all known interested parties, which listed the 3 parties to the hearing. The Agenda pack had similarly then been published on 17 August 2026 which included representations from the 2 objectors, namely the Parish Council and Ms Weis. The Council had not been informed of any omission.)
In the circumstances, the Council’s legal representative asked Mr Walsgrove whether the Applicant would consent to this additional representation being taken into account in the hearing (as required under the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005). Mr Walsgrove refused consent as it was not a valid representation.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by Claudia Weis, Godshill resident living next to the premises, and objector to the Application.
Ms Weis’s objection centred on a marked incremental increase in visitor numbers over the past 9 years resulting in significant noise pollution from the shops, restaurant and swimming pool, an amplified outdoor tv screen as well as pop concerts with outdoor amplification. There was also noise from outdoor games.
Ms Weis had contacted the Council and Environmental Health in 2021 concerning petrol powered leaf blowers being used immediately next to her property and as a result Sandy Balls was served a Noise Abatement Order which was subsequently turned into a permanent exclusion zone for use of the leaf blowers near her property.
Ms Weis felt that selling alcohol in the outdoor swimming area would add further to the noise and pointed out that there were already plenty of opportunities to purchase alcohol elsewhere on site. Ms Weis also firmly opposed the proposed increase in cinema screen times and days of usage.
Ms Weis had complained on several occasions about noise to Sandy Balls staff. She commented on the lack of continuity of staff due to constant turnover of personnel with no consistency in approach and a lack of willingness to engage constructively with local residents. After complaining of noise levels of live events and amplified music, Ms Weis had been told by staff that the noise was not too loud, and asserted that if it was turned down it was turned back up again soon afterwards.
Ms Weis made reference to advice on noise levels provided by a third party, but after objections from Mr Wallsgrove, the Chairman explained that as this was new information which purported to be expert testimony and had not previously raised in the representations in the agenda pack, it could not be admitted in evidence to the hearing.
The Chairman reiterated that the Sub-Committee could only consider evidence relevant to the Application and felt he had given sufficient latitude to the interested parties in their submissions. Many of the issues raised came under a different legislative regime which were not within the Sub-Committee’s purview. It was suggested that the Parish Council liaise with the District Council Environmental Health Team on systems and procedures regarding noise complaints.
Cllr Fell in summing up said he was frustrated that the cumulative impact of the permissions was not able to be considered. He also felt that it was not in the interests of Sandy Balls to log complaints. The Chairman pointed out that this was a statutory licensing condition and Sandy Balls were under a duty to log complaints and he could not accept this allegation without evidence.
In summing up for the Applicant, Mr Wallsgrove, sought to address comments from the objector who voiced concerns about noise post 11.00pm due to customers leaving cinema showings. He pointed out that the licence already allowed indoor and outdoor films until 11.00pm. Other than the increase in frequency of showing films from 2 to 4 times per week, the proposed change was to allow the start time for showing films to be changed from the current time of 5.00pm to the earlier time of 10.00am with no change to the terminal hours.
Also, Mr Wallsgrove emphasised that the Sub-Committee could look at the cumulative impact of added activities, but only where it had a negative impact on the licensing objectives. The Applicant’s case was that these did not have a negative impact; the activities had been managed well for 9 years and that the Environmental Health Officer had assessed this Application objectively as a responsible authority and raised no concerns.
If the Applicant was found to have failed to comply with its licence requirements, it can be used against it in future applications and running of its business
The Chairman concluded the hearing by advising that any person who believes they have sustainable evidence that the terms and conditions of the licence had been breached could at any time contact the licensing service and request a review of the licence at a licensing Sub-Committee hearing.
Decision of the Sub-Committee
The Application is granted on the terms and conditions applied for as follows:
• To permit a mobile bar in the area edged red on the plan attached to the Application located by the outdoor swimming pool – and to update the site plan to show this area. Permission for on-sales in this area 10:00hrs-22:00hrs each day.
• In relation to the showing of films indoors and outdoors:
(i) removal of the restriction that films can only be shown between 1st March to 30th September.
(ii) increase the number of times films are permitted outdoors each day between 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs to four times a week (currently twice a week).
(iii) increase the hours for indoor films to be shown between 10:00hrs to 23:00hrs.
· Removal of the condition at Annex 2 (under “Prevention of Public Nuisance”), restricting outdoor films
Reasons for the Decision
The Sub-Committee heard that the Responsible Authorities had been consulted on the Application, and no comments or objections had been received nor amendments to the Application suggested.
The Sub-Committee noted that Environmental Health had investigated 9 complaints made against Sandy Balls in the period 2019 – 2026 with 1 complaint recently received and currently being investigated. Environmental Health had not determined that Sandy Balls had created a statutory nuisance to date with regards to amplified music or speech.
Two of the complaints received by Environmental Health in 2019 and 2020 related to the outdoor cinema, but no further complaints had been received post 2020 regarding the cinema.
The Sub-Committee also noted the Applicant’s submission that the 2 complaints concerning the outdoor cinema had not been formally referred to Sandy Balls and that they were therefore unsubstantiated.
It was also noted that most of the objectors’ comments related to amplified music which was not relevant to the Application.
Overall, the Sub-Committee felt that any evidence submitted specifically in relation to the potential for noise arising as a result of the licence variations did not provide sufficient grounds to refuse the Application.
The Sub-Committee noted that a member of staff at Sandy Balls had apparently offered to share the NMP with residents - and Mr Wallsgrove had agreed to this in the hearing - and if this were the case, the Sub-Committee would welcome this.
The Sub-Committee concluded that it could only take account of evidence relevant to the Application and what little relevant evidence had been presented comprised insufficient grounds to refuse the Application. It was also mindful that there was a presumption in favour of granting an application unless there was verifiable evidence which undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives. No such evidence had been received.
Consequently, the Sub-Committee found no sufficient cause to refuse the granting of the Application.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee concluded that it was appropriate to grant the variation of the licence in accordance with 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: 25 August 2026
Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman: Cllr Steve Clarke
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Decision notified to interested parties on 1st September 2026
CHAIRMAN
Evidence
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 182 of the Licensing
Act 2003 (“s.182 Guidance”),
• The Council's own Statement of Licensing Policy.
• The steps that are appropriate to promote the licensing objectives
• Relevant Representations presented by all parties.
Sub-Committee 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”) and, in accordance
with 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.
The Licensing Manager outlined the Application.
The Application by Away Resorts Ltd, was to vary the premises licence as follows:
• Variation of Licensed Plans:
·To permit a mobile bar to be situated in an extended outdoor swimming pool area (‘the extended area’).
• Permission for the sale of alcohol in the extended area between 10:00hrs to 22:00hrs each day for consumption on the premises.
· Permission for films indoors and outdoors by:
(i)removing the restriction that films can only be shown between 1st March to 30th September.
(ii)increase the numbers of times films are permitted outdoors between 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs each day to four times a week (previously twice a week).
(iii)increase the hours for indoor films from 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs daily, to 10:00hrs to 23:00hrs daily.
If the variation application is approved, to then remove the condition restricting outdoor films at Annex 2 of the existing licence (the last condition under “Prevention of Public Nuisance”).
The Applicant’s representative, Mr Wallsgrove, cited s.182 Guidance in emphasising to the Sub-Committee that its decision on the Application must be evidence based, rather than onspeculation. He also pointed out that no objections had been made by the responsible statutory authorities, (i.e. Police, Fire & Rescue Authority, Environmental Health etc.), nor had those authorities suggested any amendments to the application. He also pointed out the Sub-Committee’s duty to treat the responsible authorities as expert sources of advice on the licensing objectives when assessing the Application. He submitted that significant weight should be attached to the absence of representations from the responsible authorities in this context.
Mr Wallsgrove explained that the outdoor cinema had been in operation for the last 9 years and referred to the reference to complaints in the Licensing Manager’s report. Whilst the report stated that 2 complaints had been made within that period about the cinema. he clarified that Sandy Balls was not formally aware of such complaints and therefore the complaints were unsubstantiated. He asserted that the absence of objection from the Environmental Health Officer to the variations was reliable evidence to show that it would have no negative impact on the licensing objectives.
Mr Wallsgrove however indicated that although the Application sought permission for 4 films per week, the extension of the indoor film hours, and the new bar at the pool until 10.00pm, it did not mean in practice that there would be 4 films shown every week for 52 weeks per annum, nor that there would be people by the pool until 10.00pm every day. He explained that the Application was intended primarily for the peak season and that it was to provide flexibility, particularly at peak times. Similarly, the pool would, for the vast majority of time continue to normally close at 6.00pm but again the Application sought flexibility at peak times. Mr Wallsgrove also asserted that Sandy Balls was the only Away Resorts park in the country that had restrictions on the number of times outdoor films could be shown per week.
Mr Wallsgrove again cited s.182 Guidance in respect of the Sub-Committee’s duty to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefit, and made reference to the negative impacts on the hospitality industry of the pandemic and other factors. Whilst he pointed out that the licensing objectives took precedence over business concerns, he emphasised again that the statutory responsible authorities had made no representations.
Mr Wallsgrove also pointed out that Sandy Balls guests were already able to purchase drinks and take them to the pool area under the current arrangements, and the Application for the bar at the pool was intended to improve convenience and customer experience. He claimed the addition of the bar at the pool area would create additional supervision of the area, in addition to the lifeguarding already in place at the pool.
He went on to explain that none of the proposed changes were designed to increase the number of guests at the holiday park; rather it was about delivering the best customer experience and to sustain customer interest and economic viability of the holiday park.
Mr Wallsgrove claimed that the effect of the Application would not increase the numbers at the pool consuming alcohol and therefore there would be no impact on the licensing objectives. He stated that outdoor noise would be monitored by both the management team and the supervisor at the bar, to ensure there was no likelihood that nearest residents were disturbed.
Mr Wallsgrove highlighted that the few complaints made to the holiday park and Environmental Health were in relation to when there was amplified music outside, which he conceded was more of an issue for management control. However he emphasised that none of the complaints were in relation to the outdoor cinema or outside drinking, which were the subject of the current Application.
In conclusion, Mr Wallsgrove submitted that the Licensing Act was intended to be a permissive instrument to remove regulatory burdens from responsible operators, and he pointed out that this approach was protected by the ability for anybody at any time to apply for a review of the premises licence if granting the variation had a negative impact on the licensing objectives. He said that whilst there was no current evidence, in the ‘incredibly unlikely’ event that evidence is provided of an adverse impact on the licensing objectives, it can be brought before the Licensing Manager – but not today. The Licensing Authority should be able to trust the licensee.
In reply to a question on continuity of knowledge of any issues across shifts, Mr Wallsgrove explained that a log was kept of complaints and their outcomes, but repeated that those complaints that had been received were in relation to amplified music, which was not relevant to the variation Application being considered.
In response to an objector’s question concerning noise complaints allegedly made to the Applicant on the dates of 20 and 25 July, 3,7,8 and 10 August Mr Wallsgrove pointed out that these were not mentioned in the Licensing Manager’s report and no evidence had been presented, so he could not reply on specific dates but stated that these complaints would normally be logged by the premises. He said that that a noise complaint had been received ‘this weekend’, but that music wasn’t coming from Sandy Balls and Environmental Health also confirmed this. He stated that when complaints were received, there was engagement and complaints were logged and proactively dealt with.
In response to a request from the Chairman on the issue of the rules governing amplified music, the Sub-Committee’s legal adviser briefly explained the existing deregulation of legislation around regulated entertainment including live amplified and recorded music involving an audience of fewer than 500 persons, in many instances there was no licence required for such entertainment between 08.00am and 11.00pm.
The Chairman of the Sub-Committee further clarified several times that amplified music was not part of the Application and therefore not relevant to the hearing. In response to a related question, Mr Wallsgrove confirmed that the capacity of the park was approximately 1000 persons, but much fewer than 500 people would be taking part in the relevant activities at any one time.
Objectors continued to raise questions relating to amplified music, but the Chairman reminded the hearing that the subject was not relevant to the Application being considered and that questions should address, and be relevant to, the objections raised against the issues in the Application.
In responding to a question, Mr Wallsgrove stated that no substantiated complaints had been received by the park relating to noise from the outdoor cinema. Also in response to a question, Mr Wallsgrove explained that there would not be live amplified music at the pool, although the premises licence did already permit regulated entertainment both indoors and outdoors until midnight.
There was further questioning from the Sub-Committee on noise measuring equipment, and Mr Wallsgrove confirmed that the Applicant had a decibel level (‘dB’) monitor but explained that, whilst it was a good measure to have in place, they were not in his view sophisticated enough to be able to assess properly the entire impact on local residents. He reiterated that there had not been a substantiated complaint in the last 9 years the cinema had been operating. On being asked about the set dB measurement levels, Mr Wallsgrove estimated it was 84dB. However he pointed out that there was a potential for noise nuisance below this level depending on the type of noise. He added that input would be needed for the Environmental Health Officer to set limits.
The Sub-Committee also questioned whether the Applicant was aware of the Verderers’ rules about tranquillity of the area and whether the Applicant was willing to try and comply with that as far as is reasonably practicable. In response, Mr Wallsgrove explained that the park must not create a public nuisance because it had to work within the law and comply with the Licensing Act and the Environmental Protection Act, or Environmental Health would investigate and consider taking steps.
In answer to the Sub-Committee’s question on how the Applicant measured and limited the number of entertainment participants to keep under 500, Mr Wallsgrove explained that the outside events were self-controlling in terms of numbers, as an outside cinema event was unlikely to attract more than 100 people. There was a significant number of facilities on site and each entertainment event would not attract anything like 500 people. Staff were not counting people in and out as the numbers did not require it.
He went on to say that Sandy Balls ensured that the correct number of staff were present to ensure health and safety, and such assessments were made in advance of events.
An objector stated that they had been refused a copy of Sandy Balls’ Noise Management Plan (‘NMP’) for the site and, even though a member of staff at the park had offered to share the NMP this had never been forthcoming. Mr Wallsgrove explained that there is no legal obligation for the Applicant to disclose the NMP but if this had indeed been offered then it could be provided.
From the objectors, the Sub-Committee heard from the Chairman of Godshill Parish Council, Cllr Fell, who addressed the Sub-Committee in support of its objection and on behalf of the community.
Cllr Fell reported that the Parish Council shared the view of many residents as set out in its submission that the proposed variation would have a significant detrimental impact on their enjoyment of their homes and the surrounding forest for a substantial part of the year.
Cllr Fell explained that Godshill was within the National Park Authority tranquillity mapping area, and residents expected to live a peaceful environment as part of their quality of life. However, persistent noise associated with the Sandy Balls Centre had undermined that expectation. One resident had made 6 noise complaints to Sandy Balls in less than a month.
Cllr Fell reported that when residents had complained to Environmental Health, they had received no response for over a month, meaning there was no opportunity to measure the noise level at the time it was being experienced.
The Parish Council questioned whether the licence was being operated effectively. The Parish Council noted that the existing licence stated: ‘The licence holder will assess the likelihood of any impact on any noise from the premises on neighbours from time to time and implement such other measures as considered necessary or as agreed in writing with the environmental health officer. The licence holder will continue to liaise with neighbours when this is considered appropriate’.
The Parish Council asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether either adequate and effective assessment of noise impact was taking place. The Sub-Committee felt it had addressed these points with Mr Wallsgrove earlier in the meeting.
The Parish Council was concerned that permitting alcohol sales in the pool area until 10.00pm could lead to increased outdoor noise from talking, activity and light pollution later into the evening, particularly affecting residents living within a short distance of the pool area both outside and inside the site. This would have an impact during the summer months when residents had their windows open or when residents were sitting in their gardens. The Parish Council therefore asked the Sub-Committee to consider what measures or conditions taking into account the location, were necessary to ensure that granting the variation did not give rise to public nuisance.
The Parish Council felt that increasing the film permissions when added to existing events, could add to the cumulative number of outdoor activities over an 8 month period, and asked the Sub-Committee not to look at this Application in isolation but the total impact.
Cllr Fell made the point that the stated finishing time of 11.00pm for activities would in reality be exceeded due to the noise of people leaving the area later than this time.
Concerns were also expressed about unnecessary light pollution in a rural area and impact on residents and wildlife. The effects of noise due to the topography of the area was also pointed out.
Cllr Fell submitted that the new proposals appeared to be an attempt to increase the attractiveness of Sandy Balls at the expense of the local residents and that the number of objections and representations the Parish Council had received from residents demonstrated the concerns about noise which were not isolated and confined to a single property, but indicated a wider and persistent issue affecting residents across Godshill, whether they were reported to Environmental Health or not.
The Parish Council maintained the view that visitors chose to take holidays in the area because of its special qualities and rural character and therefore questioned whether the extension of outdoor films and other entertainment was compatible with this. Whilst they also recognised Sandy Balls’ commercial interests, they argued that these must be balanced against legitimate interests of permanent neighbouring residents and the protection of the rural and protected environment in which the business operated. It therefore requested robust and enforceable conditions to protect the neighbourhood.
Ms Weis, objector, asked to read a statement from a Lisa Grabsch whom it was claimed had made representations within the timeframe but their letter had not been included in the agenda pack. The Chairman asked the Licensing Manager to check if this representation had been received.
The Licensing Manager reported that only 2 representations had been received within the consultation timeframe and these were from the Parish Council and Ms Weis, and not from Lisa Grabsch. Cllr Fell and Ms Weis gave details of when the submission from Lisa Grabsch had been sent and the Licensing Manager confirmed none had been received with the details provided.
(The Sub-Committee later noted that a Notice of Hearing had been issued on 10 August 2026 to all known interested parties, which listed the 3 parties to the hearing. The Agenda pack had similarly then been published on 17 August 2026 which included representations from the 2 objectors, namely the Parish Council and Ms Weis. The Council had not been informed of any omission.)
In the circumstances, the Council’s legal representative asked Mr Walsgrove whether the Applicant would consent to this additional representation being taken into account in the hearing (as required under the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005). Mr Walsgrove refused consent as it was not a valid representation.
The Sub-Committee was addressed by Claudia Weis, Godshill resident living next to the premises, and objector to the Application.
Ms Weis’s objection centred on a marked incremental increase in visitor numbers over the past 9 years resulting in significant noise pollution from the shops, restaurant and swimming pool, an amplified outdoor tv screen as well as pop concerts with outdoor amplification. There was also noise from outdoor games.
Ms Weis had contacted the Council and Environmental Health in 2021 concerning petrol powered leaf blowers being used immediately next to her property and as a result Sandy Balls was served a Noise Abatement Order which was subsequently turned into a permanent exclusion zone for use of the leaf blowers near her property.
Ms Weis felt that selling alcohol in the outdoor swimming area would add further to the noise and pointed out that there were already plenty of opportunities to purchase alcohol elsewhere on site. Ms Weis also firmly opposed the proposed increase in cinema screen times and days of usage.
Ms Weis had complained on several occasions about noise to Sandy Balls staff. She commented on the lack of continuity of staff due to constant turnover of personnel with no consistency in approach and a lack of willingness to engage constructively with local residents. After complaining of noise levels of live events and amplified music, Ms Weis had been told by staff that the noise was not too loud, and asserted that if it was turned down it was turned back up again soon afterwards.
Ms Weis made reference to advice on noise levels provided by a third party, but after objections from Mr Wallsgrove, the Chairman explained that as this was new information which purported to be expert testimony and had not previously raised in the representations in the agenda pack, it could not be admitted in evidence to the hearing.
The Chairman reiterated that the Sub-Committee could only consider evidence relevant to the Application and felt he had given sufficient latitude to the interested parties in their submissions. Many of the issues raised came under a different legislative regime which were not within the Sub-Committee’s purview. It was suggested that the Parish Council liaise with the District Council Environmental Health Team on systems and procedures regarding noise complaints.
Cllr Fell in summing up said he was frustrated that the cumulative impact of the permissions was not able to be considered. He also felt that it was not in the interests of Sandy Balls to log complaints. The Chairman pointed out that this was a statutory licensing condition and Sandy Balls were under a duty to log complaints and he could not accept this allegation without evidence.
In summing up for the Applicant, Mr Wallsgrove, sought to address comments from the objector who voiced concerns about noise post 11.00pm due to customers leaving cinema showings. He pointed out that the licence already allowed indoor and outdoor films until 11.00pm. Other than the increase in frequency of showing films from 2 to 4 times per week, the proposed change was to allow the start time for showing films to be changed from the current time of 5.00pm to the earlier time of 10.00am with no change to the terminal hours.
Also, Mr Wallsgrove emphasised that the Sub-Committee could look at the cumulative impact of added activities, but only where it had a negative impact on the licensing objectives. The Applicant’s case was that these did not have a negative impact; the activities had been managed well for 9 years and that the Environmental Health Officer had assessed this Application objectively as a responsible authority and raised no concerns.
If the Applicant was found to have failed to comply with its licence requirements, it can be used against it in future applications and running of its business
The Chairman concluded the hearing by advising that any person who believes they have sustainable evidence that the terms and conditions of the licence had been breached could at any time contact the licensing service and request a review of the licence at a licensing Sub-Committee hearing.
Decision of the Sub-Committee
The Application is granted on the terms and conditions applied for as follows:
• To permit a mobile bar in the area edged red on the plan attached to the Application located by the outdoor swimming pool – and to update the site plan to show this area. Permission for on-sales in this area 10:00hrs-22:00hrs each day.
• In relation to the showing of films indoors and outdoors:
(i) removal of the restriction that films can only be shown between 1st March to 30th September.
(ii) increase the number of times films are permitted outdoors each day between 17:00hrs to 23:00hrs to four times a week (currently twice a week).
(iii) increase the hours for indoor films to be shown between 10:00hrs to 23:00hrs.
· Removal of the condition at Annex 2 (under “Prevention of Public Nuisance”), restricting outdoor films
Reasons for the Decision
The Sub-Committee heard that the Responsible Authorities had been consulted on the Application, and no comments or objections had been received nor amendments to the Application suggested.
The Sub-Committee noted that Environmental Health had investigated 9 complaints made against Sandy Balls in the period 2019 – 2026 with 1 complaint recently received and currently being investigated. Environmental Health had not determined that Sandy Balls had created a statutory nuisance to date with regards to amplified music or speech.
Two of the complaints received by Environmental Health in 2019 and 2020 related to the outdoor cinema, but no further complaints had been received post 2020 regarding the cinema.
The Sub-Committee also noted the Applicant’s submission that the 2 complaints concerning the outdoor cinema had not been formally referred to Sandy Balls and that they were therefore unsubstantiated.
It was also noted that most of the objectors’ comments related to amplified music which was not relevant to the Application.
Overall, the Sub-Committee felt that any evidence submitted specifically in relation to the potential for noise arising as a result of the licence variations did not provide sufficient grounds to refuse the Application.
The Sub-Committee noted that a member of staff at Sandy Balls had apparently offered to share the NMP with residents - and Mr Wallsgrove had agreed to this in the hearing - and if this were the case, the Sub-Committee would welcome this.
The Sub-Committee concluded that it could only take account of evidence relevant to the Application and what little relevant evidence had been presented comprised insufficient grounds to refuse the Application. It was also mindful that there was a presumption in favour of granting an application unless there was verifiable evidence which undermined the promotion of the licensing objectives. No such evidence had been received.
Consequently, the Sub-Committee found no sufficient cause to refuse the granting of the Application.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee concluded that it was appropriate to grant the variation of the licence in accordance with 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: 25 August 2026
Licensing Sub-Committee Chairman: Cllr Steve Clarke
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Decision notified to interested parties on 1st September 2026
CHAIRMAN
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in