Lake District pub could be serving alcohol until 2am despite residents' concerns
Members of Cumberland Council's licensing sub-committee are due to meet at Allerdale House in Workington on Monday (June 2).
Wolverhampton-based Marston's has submitted an application to make the changes at Oddfellows Arms in Main Street, Keswick.
The proposed changes include:
The sale of alcohol 2am with the opening hours running until 2.30am;
To match permitted live music hours with sale of alcohol;
The playing of recorded music and late-night refreshment within current licensed areas to be matched with the sale of alcohol.
Relating to a separate condition the report states: 'The designated premises supervisor (DPS) will complete a risk assessment to deploy security on Friday and Saturday evenings or when there is a specific event in the town that would impact the expected customer base, for example, bank holiday weekends, annual events or events that would increase footfall within the town and nighttime economy.
'This risk assessment should be retained on site and available for review by responsible authorities on request.'
The application attracted four responses from residents with the first referring to previous issues with the premises, particularly the 'outrageous' volume of music that has reached properties located at the bottom of Lake Road.
The second raised concerns that doors and windows at the premises are left open during events, allowing sound to travel and be clearly audible inside their property.
The report states: 'They allege that patrons regularly sit in the outdoor garden area, where they sing along to music and shout, contributing to significant noise disturbance.
'The resident has asked whether any extension to drinking hours would include restrictions on use of the outdoor area, limit the timing of music, and ensure doors are kept closed.'
According to the report the third offered a solution that if the variation is granted, a condition should be added requiring a reduction in the volume of music after 10pm to minimise disruption to nearby homes.
And the fourth complained of ongoing nuisance caused by noise from patrons leaving the premises between midnight and 1am.
The report adds: 'The resident states if the extension were to be granted, people would be leaving between 2am and 3am making noise in the car park and streets which in a residential area is a public nuisance.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
an hour ago
- Business Upturn
All three Pahalgam attackers killed in Operation Mahadev, Amit Shah confirms in Lok Sabha
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on July 29, 2025, 12:41 IST In a significant announcement during the Lok Sabha session on Tuesday, Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed that all three Pakistani terrorists responsible for the April Pahalgam terror attack were neutralised in Operation Mahadev on July 28. The trio had been identified as members of the proscribed Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba. BIG: Home Minister Amit Shah informs the Parliament about killing of Pakistan terrorists Suleiman, Jibran and Faisal in a joint operation by Indian Army, CRPF and J&K Police in Kashmir. Terrorists were responsible for the cowardly Pahalgam terror attack. Major success for forces. — Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) July 29, 2025 Shah named Suleiman, the key mastermind behind the deadly attack that claimed 26 lives, and identified the two others as Afghan and Jibran. He stated that the information was corroborated by individuals already in custody who had reportedly provided shelter to the terrorists. 'They confirmed their identities upon being shown the bodies,' Shah told the House. Reports of the elimination of Suleiman and the two others began surfacing on Monday after Operation Mahadev was launched in Dachi, near Srinagar. However, the confirmation of their direct involvement in the Pahalgam incident came only with Shah's address in Parliament. The high-profile operation, carried out jointly by the Indian Army, J&K Police, and CRPF, is being seen as a major blow to cross-border terror networks. Shah's statement has reaffirmed India's commitment to dismantling terror infrastructure and ensuring accountability for attacks on civilians. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
3 hours ago
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, have disabilities or are unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, with reservations 60 miles apart, argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the U.S. Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits, and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin applauded the decision by the 8th Circuit panel, saying the 2009 state law revolving around voters with disabilities 'protects the right to vote free from undue influence or manipulation.' In the statement, he said Monday's ruling 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, declined to comment. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.
Politico
6 hours ago
- Politico
Trump admin escalates its war with the courts — this time targeting Judge Boasberg
Boasberg's remarks at the conference came after weeks of Trump allies inside and outside the administration suggesting judges who rule against the president should be impeached and disfavored court orders should be ignored. Judges at every level — including justices of the Supreme Court — have raised the specter of defiance by the administration and urged officials to respect court orders regardless of which court or judge issues them. Jeffrey Sutton, the chief judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals who briefed journalists after the conference that day, said several lawmakers were in attendance, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as well as Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). It is unclear whether the lawmakers heard Boasberg's remarks. A spokesperson for Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mizelle's complaint falls to Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, who oversees judicial disciplinary matters for judges in that circuit. Federal judges are ordinarily barred from making out-of-court public comments about pending or impending matters. It's unclear whether Boasberg's remarks at the judges' meeting qualify and whether he was speaking about any case he knew to be pending or imminent. The complaint also makes more general claims that his statements undermined 'public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.' Mizelle also filed a complaint earlier this year against Washington-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes for her sharp-elbowed comments about the Justice Department's arguments in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump's transgender military ban. In March, the Justice Department asked the D.C. Circuit to remove Boasberg from the deportation case and reassign it to another judge, an extraordinary step. The appeals court never acted on that request but has paused his orders related to potential contempt proceedings. After Boasberg's March ruling, Trump called for the judge's impeachment, labeling him a 'troublemaker and agitator.' The new complaint again asks for Boasberg's removal from the deportation case and for him to be reprimanded publicly. It also raises the prospect of his fellow judges calling for his impeachment over the remarks. The administration has recently escalated its fight with the judiciary in two other arenas. The Justice Department sued the entire federal bench in Maryland over a policy granting an automatic 48-hour hold on deportation cases. And the administration publicly attacked judges in New Jersey for appointing a veteran federal prosecutor as the state's U.S. attorney — an effort to push aside Trump's pick for the post, his former personal attorney Alina Habba.
