Dulwich Hamlets noise pollution!

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[charliecharlie]

(tu)

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[peterstorm1985]

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.

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[James Barber]

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

[email protected]

[DJKillaQueen]

How interesting...but that's exactly the right thing for them to do (instead of breaching the current one) and as James says residents and other bodies will now have the right to influence the outcome on those variations.

[sylvie]

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 ....