Application for extended late licence at the Great Exhibition

[healey]

woodland Wrote:

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

> spangly steve - I agree in part - if the pub has

> been there for 100 years then those who live next

> to a pub bought their houses did so knowing they

> were living next to a pub.

>

> That said - extended hours aren't part of the

> original plan but I do think that 9:30 is far far

> too early.

>

> TGE is a good pub and as much as a part of the

> community as other places.

Err, doesn't it say 10:30 for the outside area? Sounds fair to me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am sure TGE are regretting ever applying for changes to their licence. It was clearly a huge miscalculation, but to be fair they probably hadn?t counted on the latent anger of some local residents.

Ironically, their problems seem to be largely a result of their success. In it?s previous incarnation the pub was failing to such a degree that it had virtually no impact at all. I suspect, that some of those living near by have secretly harboured resentment against TGE ever since they turned the pub around, (but knew that to complain about a business being successful may seem churlish).

TGE have unwittingly handed residents the galvanizing cause they needed and have released a wave of pent up hostility. The level of vitriol and hyperbole expressed on this thread (even after TGE withdrew the application for late opening) must, I am sure, taken them by surprise. It does appear to me that a small element have gone overboard. The desire to draw blood even after TGE took residents? views on board and dropped their pursuit of a late licence, seems a little spiteful. To those still now complaining about people standing, chatting normally outside the pub? bear in mind that it is the recent past that has actually deviated from what one would usually expect... you previously have been in the lucky position of benefiting from rents / property prices that reflect living in the immediate vicinity of a pub, but without the usual level of disturbance one might reasonably expect. This does not mean that a change in that happy circumstance is the aberration.

I really hope that TGE don?t come out of this feeling too bruised. It?s not a badly run pub and the majority of those living nearby are pleased that they have breathed life back into it. They did genuinely listen to concerns about the late licence and responded appropriately. I don?t think it?s particularly fair that they have now had stricter restrictions placed upon them than existed previously.

Btw ? there is a new coffee shop opening over the road... take cover.

[LondonMix]

Agree with rahrahrah entirely.

[giggirl]

I do hope this thread dies a death now. I live near the pub and I opposed the late licence but, like many others who opposed the licence, I like the pub and I drink there and I wish them every success. I can only speak to my own motives and there was nothing spiteful; I think 2.30 is too late for a residential area. I wish this thread would go away now because it feels like picking over the bones endlessly.

[fuzzyboots]

As a resident virtually backing on to the pub, etc., I was alarmed at the late licence application. I'm self employed however, and do appreciate anyone making the effort to run a business and bring income/jobs/services to the local community.

I would like to comment though that not ALL of the residents affected did BUY properties next to the pub - I, for instance, am a private tenant and many local (i.e. potentially affected) properties are local authority owned. There is less of a "choice" to live by a pub when one is a tenant (private or social).

Just saying.

[rajanb]

@rahrahrah Couldn't have said it better myself!!

To be honest I live on the same road and NEVER been troubled by their patrons. In my experience the anti-social behaviour/nuisance around Underhill and Barry is usually down to teenagers/kids loitering - NOT the late 20's-30+ somethings enjoying some light jazz and a jar at TGE!! It is also ridiculous to compare their target audience and the consequences of a later license to establishments like Boho/Adventure - you only need to drive past on the weekend to see why. Admittedly 2am may be a little too late especially on a Thursday evening but 12:30am with 30 minutes drinking up time (effectively 1am) wouldn't have really hurt anyone. The residents directly affected by their operations could have simply said 2am is a bit too late for us but we would be fine with 12:30am-1am as a compromise. The council could have approved these extended permitted hours and simply added some practical conditions (e.g. locked sound limiter, no external amps to be bought in, better signage asking people to respect neighbours, security to ensure patrons are reminded constantly to keep the noise down whilst outside and leaving, shut windows and doors at a certain time, limit the number of smokers or people outside etc), to their license that I'm sure they would have adhered to.

I wish the 50+ residents that objected with such vigour would lobby the council/our councillors for more late night police patrols so they would catch the criminal that tried to climb through my ground floor window last week whilst I was watching TV!!!

The prices going up slightly and application for an extension are a 'cry for help' so please support the pub and prevent them from going out of business.

[Otta]

What rahrahrah said.

[James Barber]

I think you're right rahrahrah in that it galvanised local residents despite the application being timed to avoid this over the summer holidays but it was already heading for a licence review with the complaints I'd been reviving and the people that were already keeping noise logs.

Part of the CPT not having the same issues apart from lower numbers of patrons was they didn't create a 'gin' yard or encourage outside drinking.

[Alan Medic]

To be able to sit outside and have a drink is not the norm in this country due to the climate. The problem from my experience is that some of those who do sit outside do not realise how much noise they are making, possibly due to having had too much to drink.

Some people just can't handle their drink and behave immaturely. Plenty can and should be allowed the little pleasure that it is to sit outside when it borders on being a rare experience.

Who says the TGE encourages outside drinking and the CPT did not? The CPT had tables outside too. I don't get your point James unless you are saying the TGE tells people to sit outside.

[djsenior]

Has TGE arranged an evening to build bridges with the local residents yet ? It would be foolish not to. In getting the 50 objectors back on side it would create a much healthier atmosphere for all concerned and allow open communication between them should TGE want to discuss other license extensions rather than the sneaky approach that clearly didn't work.

[Otta]

What are you after, a free drink?

Can I just say that whilst the CPT was not regularly busy, if there was a sunny evening there would always be a load of people outside until after dark, and never any complaints.

[rajanb]

@James I have to agree with Alan in that CPT also had ample seating outside so that's not a fair comment. They just didn't have any customers to sit outside and it was also un-loved and un-kept so why would anyone even want to. Giving a name to their yard doesn't mean they were proactively creating/encouraging anything. The name 'Gin Yard' was probably just one of their terms within a sponsorship agreement. Surely they just need to build an compliant enclosure around the offending outside areas so sound doesn't travel as far. A bit like what Si Mangia have on Forest Hill Road.

[Alan Medic]

At least a free drink. I'm a local resident but don't require a bridge. Are you djsenior?

[DJKillaQueen]

djsenior Wrote:

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

> Has TGE arranged an evening to build bridges with

> the local residents yet ? It would be foolish not

> to. In getting the 50 objectors back on side it

> would create a much healthier atmosphere for all

> concerned and allow open communication between

> them should TGE want to discuss other license

> extensions rather than the sneaky approach that

> clearly didn't work.

What are you talking about now? You were sucessful in forcing the withdrawal of the application for variation of opening hours. I think TGE have done enough to appease by that withdrawal. It is not sneaky to apply for variation of a licence. The process allows for consultation and objection.....so very unfair to call a business sneaky for making an application. Businesses make applications for variations of licence all the time. They are not required to carry out their own consultation before doing so...and why should they when the application process itself allows for consultation. I do think you are like a dog with a bone here DJS. You've won, but it doesn't seem to be enough for you.

[djsenior]

When opening, TGE told local residents that the license would remain the same, then when people were on holiday tried to sneak through an application that, had the locals not noticed (a sign in the window) and rallied over two days to get 50 signatures, would have gone through and then been difficult to reverse - SNEAKY

If TGE wants to act like a smart business run by intellegent management it needs the support of the residents in the immediate vicinity.

I don't want a free drink BTW, just a successful pub with locals able to sleep at night without disturbance.

[djsenior]

Ps - in case no-one has noticed, TGE now has lesser (more sensible) licensing conditions (front of pub now HAS to be cleared by 10:30pm, it was 11:30) than prior to the application, proving the locals residents are right in the basic need for sleep. Well done Southwalk Council for supporting residents need for sleep in a residential area.

[Alan Medic]

djsenior Wrote:

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

> When opening, TGE told local residents that the

> license would remain the same

Who exactly did they tell? I'm a local resident. They didn't tell me.

[Otta]

To call them sneaky for applying in the summer is pretty cynical. Surely they applied then because that is when the outdoor space would actually be used.

[djsenior]

There's a lot of support here for a management that wanted to turn the pub into a 2am long weekend dancing club with zero respect for local residents.

[Otta]

Is there? I've not seen a single person suggest anything of the sort. You're quite the drama queen djsenior.

[DJKillaQueen]

djsenior Wrote:

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

> There's a lot of support here for a management

> that wanted to turn the pub into a 2am long

> weekend dancing club with zero respect for local

> residents.

Rubbish. Drama queen indeed as Otta says. I suspect, like the most zealous of campaigners, you'll never be happy DJ. The pub will not be expected to stop people going outside to smoke, and those people will chatter, and neither the police nor the licensing committee will be interested when you try to claim that (as no doubt you will) to be a breach of licence. Every single poster on this thread had held the view that an extended licence at weekends was not sensible in a residential area. And the licensing committee agreed with that sensible view. That should be the end of the matter.

[KidKruger]

To be fair there's been at least a couple of posters on this thread saying relax what's the problem with late night drinking and they're sure it'll not be a problem / just wait and see etc. etc.

You even replied to one of those posters yourself DJQK if I remember correctly.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah but a couple of posters does not equate to a lot of support as DJ claims does it.... ;)

[KidKruger]

All I'm saying is DJSenior may be innaccurate but that doesn't mean others need to lose their own grasp of what this thread contains.

To say "EVERY SINGLE poster on this thread had held the view that an extended licence at weekends was not sensible.." is just not true.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'll conceed that, although I draw the line at it being suggested that anyone but DJSenior has lost grasp of the thread's core issue tbf lol.