Plumstead Common nightclub license rejected
Word reaches us from our spies that the application for a license to convert the old Ship Inn on Plumstead Common Road into a private members nightclub has been rejected this evening. Apparently there were around 200 people at the meeting and they had to move it into the Public Hall. It's likely the applicant will appeal but if they maintain their request to remove a 48 hour cooling off period for new members then the local Police have said they will also be making representations.
posted by greenwich.watch at 8:30 pm
6 Comments:
Apparently, the application was thrown out on a technicality. I don't know what this is or what it means. If there is a transcript of this meeting, then I'd love to read it.
WELL DONE ALL.
I was one of the councillors on the sub-committee last night.
The applicant had offered to have a condition attached to the licence
requiring a 48-hour wait for membership. On this basis the police did not object to the application.
The applicant's agent subsequently told council officers that he wished to withdraw the offer of a "cooling-off period".
When the police representative heard this he felt that there was a material change to the way it was proposed to run the premises. In the light of this he considered that the police could not maintain their "no objection" stance without making further inquiries.
As the police are one of the responsible authorities who have to be consulted on all applications and as any objection from them would carry some weight, we felt we had no option other than to reject the application.
I'm not sure, Scout, hopefully there would be a way of minimising additional paper generation, but for an authoritative answer try the Council's Licensing Dept on 8921-8212 or 8921-8162
1. My understanding is that the whole process would begin again. There are already plans afoot for the response of the local community to be more efficient.
2. I am concerned that the police had no objections before. Were they restricted from so doing by legal restraints? Could they have cited problems relating to similar ventures or would they have to record actual crimes associated with Bust "Da" Rhymes before demanding a review of the licence?
3. I believe the Planning Department has notified the agent/architect that planning consent is required to (i) block windows; (ii) change use from pub to nightclub.
4. Rumour has it that the "owner" has now applied to convert the whole building into flats.
I suggest we all wait and see, before making a considered response.
Busta has reapplied for a licence - under the same terms but with earlier closing times. See Plumsteadshire blog for details and here:
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A6358FDA-CBA9-4074-92B6-97600589BC1A/0/6thNovember2006.pdf
The deadline for objections is 7th December. Opposition to the last application apparently broke records, but we shouldn't become complacent.
It would appear that the application for this licence has now returned but has done so under the old name of the premise, the Ship. I am sure the name change was not in response to the undertones of the reaction to the more ‘urban’ (as I believe the argot would have it) name of ‘Bust da Rhymes’ with its connotations of young black males having fun, not in Labour-voting Plumstead where they hold the Anti-Racist Festival.
Will the applicant again get the sort of hearing which looked like Chairman Councillor Ray Walker – was that his Master’s voice one heard in the background? – shamelessly appeasing the assembled masses with what was considered necessary to keep Plumstead Labour-voting? Incorrectly-styled ‘opposition’ Member, Councillor Paul Webbewood inevitably followed suit and sided with the majority over the minority – standard practice perhaps for the minority party in its dealings with the majority party in Greenwich Council?
With apparently an even greater response to what is said to now be an entirely ordinary pub application will ever more tortuous technicalities be required from the Committee to discourage the business opportunity of this ‘BME’(as I believe the current political terminology would have it) applicant, or will the Committee have to succumb to their Council’s own equality policy and the Government’s licensing laws against the wishes of a number of the Plumstead electorate?
I gather the decision making process for the recent licence review of the Cutty Sark has been equally as inventive. Though this time the assembled masses were not appeased with the decision of the Chairman (perhaps the genitive is incorrectly used in this case).
Post a Comment
<< Home