A “huge list” of locals have spoken out against a beach-side café owner’s plans to start serving alcohol, listing myriad reasons why they believe it could cause antisocial behaviour, noise and even serious injury.

Cornwall Council received 52 objections – including from the parish council and the area’s Cornwall councillor – against a licensing application by Widemouth Bay Café, near Bude, to serve booze until 11pm all week, though this had since been amended to a 9pm finish.

Concerns included the fact there are no customer toilets at the café, which could lead to people urinating and defecating on the beach, and possible injury if people took glass on to the beach as well as intoxicated people swimming in the sea or venturing to a nearby cliff.

At a licensing sub-committee meeting on Wednesday (June 17), the cafe’s owners Sarah and Rob Lock – who trade as WCAF Limited – were represented by solicitor Nathaniel Gadsby.

He told councillors there had been some naivety with the original application and some of the proposed conditions were vague, but that Mrs Lock had “got to know the area and the premises better” since the application was submitted.

Mr Gadsby said she is seeking to operate a family-friendly café that will cater for local residents as well as tourists, and that as part of new conditions – which had since been suggested by Mrs Lock – alcohol would only be served with a table meal.

The solicitor added that “legitimate concerns” had been raised about a lack of customer toilets and the applicant agreed this would have to be addressed. Alcohol would not be served until toilets were provided, which would have to go through the proper planning process.

Mrs Lock told the sub-committee she had no intention of “having a rave” at the café, but that the licence would simply give the option for people to have the odd glass of wine with a meal.

She added that there are three café-type businesses in the vicinity which have licences and nobody had a problem with them.

Ms Lock said she believed the reaction to the application had got “a bit out of hand” and maybe her intentions had been misunderstood. “I’m sorry if I’ve upset anybody – that was clearly not my intention. I have children myself – I hate noise after 9pm. My intention is not to upset anybody and to look after the local area, so I hope they can understand that.”

Stephen Blake, chair of Poundstock Parish Council, said: “I’m here representing the council because we’ve had so many comments from concerned residents in the hamlet of Widemouth Bay.”

He said the café was very close to residential properties (around 35 metres, according to another speaker), unlike other licensed premises in Widemouth Bay, so he believed the suggestion that there were other licensed properties operating in the area was a “bit of a misnomer”.

“I think we should concentrate on what is actually a very small café slap bang in the middle of a residential area. Should it expand its offering, I’m very concerned on behalf of the parish that they have no toilet facilities for public use.

“I cannot see how the promise of putting in more toilets will actually materialise because first of all they’ve got to get planning permission. Where’s the land they’re going to put them on?”

Cllr Blake said that the parish council owns the public toilets in the car park, 20 metres away from the café. He said a possible increase in footfall, damage and mess in the public toilets caused by customers using the café if it was allowed to serve alcohol was “not good news” and that the council was within its rights to lock the toilets at night.

“Those who have had too much to drink and need a wee are going to be in all sorts of trouble.”

He was also concerned about glasses being carried on to the beach, despite assurances there would be signs asking people not to. “It’s only a matter of time that there’s a nasty accident with broken glass.”

The parish chairman also said up to 80 people drinking outside would be very loud and heard across the area. “Again, totally unacceptable.”

He added that his council had the power to go to court and get the café’s premises licence revoked if it was approved, due to a covenant attached to its purchase of the public toilets.

“That’s something the parish council would probably consider given the strength of feeling in the area about this application.”

The meeting was told there was a “huge list” of other people who wanted to speak. Solicitor Piers Warne spoke on behalf of 17 objectors, who had concerns around crime and disorder and public safety.

He questioned whether the sensible thing would be to stop the meeting and ask the applicants to withdraw their application as so many elements had changed since it was originally submitted.

He said the café could not sell alcohol currently anyway because of a restrictive covenant on the premises, which would have to be released to allow them to do so. Mr Warne believed a fresh application was the sensible move.

The applicant’s solicitor disagreed and said they still wanted to proceed with a decision from the licensing sub-committee.

Widemouth Bay resident Vicky Innes told councillors: “My main concern is public safety – alcohol and open water danger are a real thing. Within 50 metres there’s a considerable cliff height with unstable rocks. It’s known for dangerous riptides and is a heavily lifeguarded beach from Easter until the end of October, such are the risks.”

Tom Squibb, who uses the beach every day, added: “I like a beer, I like music, but I like them in the right place and I’m sorry but this café just isn’t the right place.” He believed the application would introduce dangers in the area.

A number of other residents also raised concerns about noise from music and many of the other reasons previously stated during the meeting.

Cllr Nicky Chopak, who represents Widemouth Bay at Cornwall Council, said: “I want this application to be refused or deferred for a significant length of time so that the applicant can get their act together to understand what the concerns are of the residents.”

After a period of deliberation, the sub-committee refused the application as members noted the details were substantially different from what was originally applied for. They were concerned at the lack of toilets, the proximity of the café to nearby residents and the potential for noise nuisance.

Members also had “serious concerns” about the close proximity of the cliffs and the fact that the area, including the car park, was virtually unlit. They were also concerned that, despite signage, glass could be taken on to the beach with the risk of injuries occurring.