Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There doesn't seem to be any issues with those events. It's the late night private function parties that the two residents have complained about on this thread that appear to be in breach.....they live next to the club and are best placed to know just how often that is a problem. DH can solve that issue in an instant by keeping to the rules.


By all means continue support the club in the things and events it does well.

My only wish is to see the licence is adherred to. People shouldn't have to complain every time DH breaks terms of it's licence. It would be welcome to have someone from DH agree that in future all aspects of the license will be adherred to (and to admit they understand what that the terms of their license are). After all, the vast majority of licensed premises are perfectly capable of policing themselves and staying within the terms of their licenses.


And if DH does break a term of license residents can complain immediately to Southwark Liscensing (which is what I would recommend). There is no need to 'negotiate' with DH on issues of continued breach of license....there is no leeway when it comes to licensing. That is the law. And there is precedent. the OP has complained in the past to the club about late night party's that clearly are breaches. Each time to be told it won't happen again.....but of course it has. So that says that DH have no intention of abiding by their license. In that situation there is no alternative but to request a review by the licensing authority.


Also why are people being asked to email you Davide as opposed to emailing the club directly? It's all very well you saying you don't want to say who you are but the problem is that you are asking people to contact you in a formal capacity when we have no idea who you are within the club management. You are not listed as part of the committee or management on DH website. The email address you have given doesn't link you to DH either.


The licence holder is Nick MacCormack. So my advice would be that any complaints are addressed in writing to the registered licence holder, not yourself Davide. That is the correct process to follow. He is also the designated premises supervisor by that license and therefore is solely responsible for ensuring the terms are met. It's important that the right person receives complaint if further on, a review by the licensing authority is required, otherwise the license holder can say 'he never received any complaint'. So for that reason complaints should only be sent to the license holder.

I would like to support DJKQ's advice that complaints should be made to the licence holder as named on the licence, not to an unverified email address. If Davide is acting on the licence holder's behalf (as his agent in legal terms) then he should state exactly what his relationship is. I do not understand why he is not prepared to do so on this forum.


I had endeavoured to give Davide the benefit of the doubt and hoped that he was acting in good faith in his attempts to resolve a failure to comply with the licence (a failure evidenced by contributors to this thread) but a number of his posts appear to infer he was doing something constructive to resolve the issue - with an attempt to gain the moral high ground - and yet he will not respond to direct questions about what that something is, either the solution, or the number of an amended licence if such a thing exists.


For anyone who is in any way directly affected, but who does not want to contact DH directly (I can't imagine any possibility of any untoward behaviour from DH but I know that when you have suffered from an organisation's failure to comply with the law it can be difficult to draw a sensible line in your head as to what they might do in response), I am glad to support DJKQ's statement that you can contact the licensing authority directly.


Whilst I would not wish to be as passionate as DJKQ in her approach to this matter, I would say that this is not just a matter for those immediately affected. The nature of East Dulwich as a community is affected by the compliance with those licensing regulations that are in place to allow all of us to enjoy our environment.


I would like DH to comply absolutely with all the conditions of their licence and then I would hope that as many people as possible would attend their public events.

You are a promoter which is very different to being part of the management committee responsible for DH. However on the sound/ noise issue as long as the licensing hours are kept to and the other conditions, such as keeping windows closed and bringing shutters down at 10.30pm are adherred to there shouldn't be any cause for most complaints.


I don't know if you have anything to do with private functions but an assurance that live music/ entertainments won't play past midnight and that all events will be finished by 1.30 on Fri and Sat night (as the license requires) would I think go a long way to appeasing the two residents that have complained on this thread.


Then people can get back to talking about the great (but legal) events they've attended and enjoyed, instead of the disturbance caused by those that go on long into the night.

  • 2 weeks later...

Today's Southwark News page 45 has an advert advertising that Dulwich Hamlets have applied for a variation to their hours of opening, hours of providing enteraintment and hours they can sell alcohol.


The extra additional hours they've applied to sell alcohol and provide entertainment are:

Friday 11pm - 1am

Saturday 11pm - 1am

Sunday 10pm - 11pm


Overal opening hours will then be:

FRiday 7am - 1am

Saturday 9am - 1am

Sunday 9am - 11pm


If you wish to comment - whether to support or object then contact Southwark licensing department The application was made 20 August and the window to make a comment is 28 days from then so deadline is 17 September.


Any objection would legally need to be on one or more of the following grounds. Equally any support would need to explain why the applciation wouldn't have these imapcts:


Objections must relate to one or more of these four licensing objectives.

1. The prevention of crime and disorder

2. Public safety

3. The prevention of nuisance

4. The protection of children from harm


Any representation you make should include:

- your name and signature

- your address details

- the date you wrote the letter (or email)

- the application that you are opposed to

- the reasons why you are opposed to the application


I've attached the guide to this.


All representations should be sent to:

Southwark Council Licensing Service

The Chaplin Centre

Thurlow Street

London

SE17 2DG


Tel: 020 7525 5748

Fax: 020 7525 5705


licensing@southwark.gov.uk

I shall be writing to them next week. It's ironic that they have applied for a variation on the license since this forum discussion. I should also point out that I'm pretty sure that the windows were not kept shut on Saturday night (let alone the shutters) nor the previous Saturday. Perhaps they should work on that part of their license first ....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...