Jump to content

Dulwich Hamlets noise pollution!

sylvie

By sylvie
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

The do NOT have a late bar licence. The licence was granted May 22nd 2009. They can serve light refreshment but not alcohol past 11pm.


Opening hours: Monday 10:00 to 23:00

Tuesday 10:00 to 23:00

Wednesday 10:00 to 23:00

Thursday 10:00 to 00:00

Friday 09:00 to 01:30

Saturday 09:00 to 01:30

Sunday 12:00 to 01:00



Granted licensable activities: Facilities for dancing - indoors


Monday 07:00 to 21:00

Tuesday 07:00 to 21:00

Wednesday 07:00 to 21:00

Thursday 07:00 to 21:00


Late night refreshment - indoors


Thursday 23:00 to 00:00

Friday 23:00 to 01:00

Saturday 23:00 to 01:00

Sunday 22:30 to 01:00


Live music - indoors and outdoors


Friday 19:00 to 00:00

Saturday 19:00 to 00:00

Sunday 19:00 to 23:00


Performance of dance - indoors


Friday 19:00 to 00:00

Saturday 19:00 to 00:00

Sunday 19:00 to 21:30


Plays - indoors


Friday 19:00 to 22:00

Saturday 19:00 to 22:00

Sunday 19:00 to 22:00


Sale by retail of alcohol to be consumed on premises


Monday 10:00 to 23:00

Tuesday 10:00 to 23:00

Wednesday 10:00 to 23:00

Thursday 10:00 to 23:00

Friday 10:00 to 23:00

Saturday 10:00 to 23:00

Sunday 12:00 to 22:30

peterstorm1985

peterstorm1985

Posted
Posted

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > It takes you to a thread in which Nick, the owner

> of DHFC, has stated that there is a late licence

> till 1pm on Fridays and Saturdays.

>

> I don't know how to link to a specific post in the

> thread, and I don't think there's a way to do

> that.


Dear Sue,

in order to prevent any further discussion and before poor DJKillaQueen bursts a blood vessel please would you ask Nick (who I assume you know) for confirmation of the licence number that he claims provides the late licence and then we will be able to see if it is the same licence that DJKillaQueen has already provided the link to or not. If it is a new licence I will happily insert the link for you. From what I have seen it would appear that DJKillaQueen is correct.

Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Dear Sue,

> in order to prevent any further discussion and

> before poor DJKillaQueen bursts a blood vessel

> please would you ask Nick (who I assume you know)

> for confirmation of the licence number that he

> claims provides the late licence and then we will

> be able to see if it is the same licence that

> DJKillaQueen has already provided the link to or

> not. If it is a new licence I will happily insert

> the link for you. From what I have seen it would

> appear that DJKillaQueen is correct.


xxxxxxxx


Nick posts on the forum and as you can see has posted on the other thread that DJKQ has posted on concerning our forthcoming gig.


Therefore you - or she - can easily PM him.


I am off sick with stress at the moment and this is really not helping, the issue is not about The Goose is Out and I really don't want to be involved in this any more.

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

That's fair enough Sue....you are quite right...it is Nick's problem not yours.


Within the context of the thread though it is important that local residents know what licence is held and that DH abide by it. To be fair, this thread wouldn't exist if DH did - so they bring it on themselves. And the OP has had the pleasant suprise of finding that they don't have to put up with ANY late night disturbance by DH.


Until Nick (who is the license holder) can provide evidence that they have different alcohol and music licensing terms to those shown on license number 828551 then it can only be assumed that DH knowingly breach their licence. And if a licensing inspector sees that they could lose it altogether.


It does matter that licenses are enforced.

katie1997

katie1997

Posted
Posted

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Flipping hell DJKQ, let people fight their own

> battles. I'm not being rude but you seem overly

> bothered by someone else's problems.


I was thinking the same thing.


Also, agree totally with Jeremy's comments too.


Sue - Hope you feel better soon and don't let the comments or tone on here get to you :)

Alec John Moore

Alec John Moore

Posted
Posted
Perhaps he feels some responsibility towards the people who live near the venue he manages. Perhaps he might see the forum as an opportunity to communicate with them and demonstrate that he is in fact a law abiding, upstanding member of his community.
DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

On another thread Nick claims to have a licence til 1am but he doesn't. He has a light refreshment licence til 1am but the alcohol licence is only until 11pm. I've posted his licence on here. If he thinks he can sell alcohol until 1am he is in breach of that licence.


The Licensing Act 2003 defines 'light refreshment' as:


The Act defines that a person provides ?late night refreshment? if he or she sells hot food or hot drink to members of the public or a section of the public between 11.00.p.m. and 5.00.a.m. from any premises irrespective of whether the food or drink is to be consumed on the premises or off the premises.


That is why sale of alcohol is covered by separate restictions.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted

I see that the minutes of the open part of the Southwark Licensing Sub-Committee meeting of 27 April 2009, when the club's application for variation of licence was considered, are available in a 75 kB PDF document http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=4036.


AFAICS it's principally a statement of the additional permitted licensable activities (late night refreshments, etc) and the Environmental Protection Team Noise Conditions, as now incorporated in the full licence details http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesGrantedDetails.asp?systemkey=828551 that DJKQ's already linked to and quoted from.


Section 3 does contain:


"We have considered all representations, written and aural, and we are satisfied that the conditions imposes by the Metropolitan Police and the Environmental Protection Team, which we have accepted, will alleviate any concerns with the licensing objectives. The Council expects that all terms,conditions and restriction of the premises licence will be complied with at all times that the premises are used under the licence. The failure to comply with terms, conditions and restrictions of the premises of the premises licence is a matter to which the Licensing Sub-Committee may have regard in the event that any request is made for the review of the licence."

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

Yes and the changes to the licence referenced in those minutes apply in no part to a change in the terms of sale of alcohol. It was an application to extend the types of use and acivities only. I do think Nick at DH has confused the term of 'light refreshment' with 'sale of alcohol' and have pm'd him to point that out.


That may well just be a genuine mistake for not understanding the licence but one that he should now correct with no more 'late' bars (or advertising of such).


As for windows, shutters, music, noise etc, there can be no misunderstanding of the licence terms and any failure to abide so far can only be interpreted as deliberate.


No representative of DH (as far as I am aware) has posted on this thread but yet the licence holder has wrongly informed both an event promoter and readers on another. Bizarre when the license is online for everyone to see for themselves.

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

The only thing that matters Davide is that DH understand that live music and entertainment is not licensed beyond midnight/ windows must be closed/ shutters must be closed at 10.30pm and noise levels must be monitored externally by DH themselves. Sale of alcohol is only licensed til 11pm and hot food and hot (non-alcoholic) drinks are licensed til 1am on Fridays and Saturdays. Those are all things that seem to be breached on both a regular and occasional basis along with occasional abuse of opening hours according to some complaints and Southwark Licensing have been made aware.


The license also has conditions for outdoor events, but there doesn't seem to be any issues regarding those. The issue seems to be only with use of the bar area for late nights parties and events, and if DH were to abide by the terms of their license there would be no issues there either.


The license holder Nick (who doesn't seem to read pm's either) is the person required to make sure the terms of that license are met but has chosen not to repsond to the points on this thread it seems.

DJKillaQueen

DJKillaQueen

Posted
Posted

Jeremy I was listing the terms of the licence, making a distiction between the part that deals with sale of alcohol and the part that deals with 'late night refreshment'.


Not being petulant PGC. My issue, from what I've found out, is breach of licence. For the OP it's late night noise that is also in breach of several terms of the licence. I find it odd that the licence holder (who has posted elsewhere) is strangely silent on this thread. Davide can't provide a solution for noise from the music that has been complained about because it was after midnight and there shouldn't be any music at those times according to the terms of the licence.


All the same I will mail Davide and ask for more info and then post back to the thread.

kristymac1

kristymac1

Posted
Posted
This is a point of principal isn't it? and to be honest I'm with DJKQ on this one. It has already been pointed out that the 'certain nights do not affect the local residents but others do' (the folk music vs boom boom argument...) is not a valid reason to smudge the licencing agreement. You simply can't decide that its ok to serve alcohol later/play music later on nights where the music is 'nice and inoffensive'. On the other hand, I'm sure no-one wants to see DH business in jeopardy due to unnecessary curtailment - although this is more likely to happen if they are found in breach of their existing licence. So why doesn't DH apply to extend their licence to fit better with their current practice - they would have the support of lots of people (on here at least it would seem) and those that have concerns would be able to voice them properly - just a thought.....
Mark

Mark

Posted
Posted

Give Davide a chance DJKillaQueen, he's come on the forum to help address the problem. If you're really that concerned about the licence being adhered to it maybe better to work with him not against him.



PPF Wrote:


> Dear All

>

> My name is Davide ... fully understand the

> concerns and the noise being

> a priority. We have found a solution to the

> problem and we are currently working on it.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sue
      Dulwich Hill SNT - "Cuppa with a Coppa"

      By Sue · Posted

      PCSOs may not need specific qualifications, but they go through a reasonably rigorous recruitment process. Or at least they used to. It may have changed.
    • Penguin68
      Dulwich Hill SNT - "Cuppa with a Coppa"

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      The ones I've dropped into may be organised by PCSOs in the SNT but regular PCs have attended. They have actually been a cuppa with a copper, but not necessarily loads of them. 
    • vladi
      Dulwich Hill SNT - "Cuppa with a Coppa"

      By vladi · Posted

      @Pereira Neves "Cuppa with a Coppa" is a misrepresentation as PCSOs are not real police.   They have no more powers of arrest that any public citizen. They may have the "authority" to advise the regular police of a crime - just like Joe Public. One exception is that they can issue fixed penalty notices to people who cycle on a footpath. We see people cycling on the footpath every day but have never seen a PCSO issue a fixed penalty notice to anybody. No  qualifications are needed to become a PCSO.  At best, all they do is reassure and advise the public with platitudes.      
    • Sephiroth
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Sephiroth · Posted

      Right.  Already too many people saying “labour pushed for longer and more stringent lockdowns” which if nothing else, does seem to give credence the notion that yes people can be brainwashed    Nothing ...  Nothing Labour pushed for was about longer lockdowns.  Explicitly, and very clearly they said “lock down early OR we will be locking down for longer “   ie they were trying to prevent the longer lockdowns we had   But “positive thinking” and “nothing to see here” from Johnson led to bigger problems    as for the hand-wavery about the economic inheritance and markets being spooked by labour budget - look - things did get really really and under last government and they tried to hide it.  So when someone tries to address it, no one is going to be happy.  But pretending all was tickety boo is a child’s response 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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