Dulwich Hamlets noise pollution!

[DJKillaQueen]

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

[TillieTrotter]

Flipping hell DJKQ, let people fight their own battles. I'm not being rude but you seem overly bothered by someone else's problems.

[peterstorm1985]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

Thank you I was just going to ask the same thing. It's easily checked after all.

[Sue]

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]

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.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> That's fair enough Sue....you are quite right...it

> is Nick's problem not yours.

xxxxxxx

You seem to have gone out of your way to make it my problem, however

[katie1997]

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 :)

[georgia]

DJKQ - why exactly are you so bothered about this?? Does it affect you?

[expat]

>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

Why should Nick feel obliged to provide evidence on a forum?

[Alec John Moore]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fuschia]

God, some people have far too much time on their hands!!

[Alec John Moore]

Too much time to offer their opinions, share references to official information and stand up for what they believe in? I can think of a few posters on EDF who would fit that description.

[DJKillaQueen]

Maybe Fuschia would prefer a world where people and businesses do as they please.....after who cares about local residents and other businesses? Fortunately licensing authorities and the law does.

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Why are you being so petulant DJKQ?

Davide has offered to sort the problem out and you are jumping down his throat. Give the bloke a chance.

[Jeremy]

I see it's not just the noise DJKQ is concerned about, it's also hot food and hot (non-alcoholic) drinks! Her concern knows no bounds!

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

I haven't offended you at all. My posts regard the licence that Dulwich Hamlet holds. How on earth is that offensive to you? You are not responsible for late night parties that breach the licence which is what the OP is complaining about.

[kristymac1]

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]

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.

[james84]

Well done Davide, its very admirable that you have attempted to recify the problem and offered to talk it through with people.