The Hope & Anchor 123 Acre lane SW2 Representations

38 Pages·2005·9.48 MB·English

The Hope & Anchor 123A cre laneS W2
Representations
Produced using ESRI (UK)'s MapExplorer 2.0 -http://www.esriuk.com
SANDHURSTCOURTLTD
Registered Office: 14 Sandhurst Court Acre Lane London 5W2 5TX Telephone,:0 2075018554
Directors: M Keating,M Klein. L. MorTis,A . O'Neill, J. Steele, R Webb Co-Secretary: D Logan
E-mail: [email protected] Registration Number: 3149812
r;;iG;x~ 1-()~\~" ;:::~~; I 25J uly2 005
Public Protection( Licensing)
29
LambethB orougho f Lambeth 2005
2 HemeH ill Road
L ~ EiV ~I j"
London SE24 OAU
DearS irs,
Application (or licensee xtension- Ho~ and Anchor. Acre Lane. SW2
We are flat owners and residentso f SandhurstC ourt. We live in a quiet block of 57 flats next
door to the above pub. One side of our building is less than 5 yards from the pub, about 25
flats overlook the pub backgarden,t he others overlook the street side. There are also other
housesn ext door, very close to the pub garden, others are being built. Our residentsi nclude
the elderly ~c hildren and babies. I
We have tried unsuccessfullyt o sort out the existing problems with the pub 1:enantasn d
owners, before we knew they bad applied for this extension. The notice in tb.e pub window
~ that they are applying to continue until lam some nights and 2am on 24 nights a year,
although the application details on the internet do not mention this. I
We object to the above extension as the increasedn oise and security problems would seriously
affect our enjoyment of our homes, particularly during the summer. The extension would be
contrary to all the Act's four main licensing objectives.
Noise from the pub dj$turbsresidents, including the children, particularly those
overlooking the back of the pub arid its garden. The pub have to open their windows, even
in winter, and they ~ways use the garden in wanner weather. Despite cotriplaints,
sporadically noise continues Until 11.30 ot midnight, on June 18 2005 it. continued until
lam, well beyond the stipulated time. Even itt da~e there are times we cannot hear the
television, have a nom1al conversation or enjoy our ~en. ItwiU stop us sleep~ if they
are licensed for Jaten ight live or recorde4 music as well as dan~. We believe this would
be a public nuisancet o reSidentsa s well as ham1ingc hildren who are unable to sleep.
We have tried to reason with the pub tenants but we now realise that they will not stick to
any promises to respect their neighbours. There was no improvement even when we
contactedt he pub landlords. As the noise is sporadic at the moment it is difficult to
anange for the noise team to hear it although may be able to arrange it.
There is a public safety issue as people can climb the pub fence into OI.lrg arden. If they
open later, there is less chance of someoneb eing seen.O ne actually bloke into our
building. The police deah with him and the pub told our caretaker that he worked there.
~ have refused to pay for the ~e and claim the incident did ~ot happen although
we have the crime number (121131 8/04) and the police willco~,O201326 1212.
Others have climbed over the fence, recently two children, They did nOt cause any trouble
but clearly there is asecurit.y issue. The pub owners refuse roraisetheir fence unless we
pay for it although it is their responsibilit.y..T he pub is clearly nOt concerned and unlikely
to do anything abo~ Wis.
Customers leaving the pub disturb residents on the street side of the building already, even
when they leave in:small groups. Regular late hours will wake up those residents, causing
a public nuisance and hann to the children.
.I
.
There are plenty of other late night venues in Brixton, there is no need for anothero ne
next door to quiet residentialh ousing. The Licensing Act intends to prev$t public
nuisancea nd disorder and this extensionw ould be contrary to the Act. II
Other local pubs near residential housing have to stop outside noise before normal closing
time -like The Trinity in Trinity Gardens. The Hope and Anchor should haV(~th e same
constraints. We are not impressedb y the responsibility shown by the current tenantsw ho
have ignored their previous promises and we do not believe they will complylin the future
unless the constraint is enforced.
In conclusion, this extensions hould be refused on the grounds of all four of the licensing
objectives. In addition, the pub tenantsh ave not shown any responsibility towards their
neighbours so the Hope and Anchor licence should be varied so they have to comply with the
same tenns and conditions on noise levels as other local pubs near homes. They should have
to keep their music and other noise down to a reasonablel evel for a residential area even
during daytime, including summerw eekends. We believe this would be in lipe with
government undertakingst o reduce drinking and disorder problems for or~ members of
the public trying to enjoy their homes in peace. I
Signed
4
~~
~-c~~
LocJ-.5:<.
Public Protection( Licensing)
LambethB orougho f Lambeth
""~
2 HerneH ill Road
~iv'ifi::t'~
London SE24O AU
-4 AUG 2005
DearS irs,
; RECEIVED
Application for licensee xtension-H one and Anchor. Acre(.~f'1;~
I live in a quiet block of 57 flats next door to the above pub. One side of our building is less
than 5 yards from the pub, about 25 flats overlook their back garden, the Qtherso verlook the.
streets ide. There are also other housesn ext door, very close to the pub g~rden. Our residents
include the elderly, children and babies.
I object to the above extensiona s the increasedn oise and security problems would seriously
affect our enjoyment of our homes, particularly during the summer. .The notice in the pub
window states that they are applying to continue until2am on 24 nights a ryear,a lthough the
application details on the internet do not mention this.
Noise from the pub disturbs the residents, including the children, particularly those
overlooking the back of the pub and its garden. This noise will get fa~ worse if they are
licensed for live or recorded music as well as dancing. Despite complaints, noise often
continues until 11.30 or midnight, on June 182005 the noise continueii until lam, well
beyond the stipulated time. Even during the day, there have beent imes when we have
been unable to watch television, have a normal conversation or use out garden. Our sleep
with be badly disturbed if the hours are increased. We believe this caqsesa public
nuisance to the residentsa s well as harming the children who are unable to sleep.
The pub regularly opens their windows, even in winter, or use the garden in warmer
weather, increasing the problem. If they had music or performances, nobody overlooking
the garden could sleep.
Therei s a public safetyi ssue. Peoplec limb the pubf encei nto our garden. On one
occasion,t hey brokei nto the buildinga ndt he police werec alled. The pub hasr efusedt o
pay for the damaget heyc auseda nd claimt he incidentd id not happena lthoughw e have
the crime number( ) andt he police will conflrm.( Emaileds tatemenat ttached)O. thers
havec limbed over the fence,r ecentlyt wo children. Theyd id not causea nyt rouble but
clearlyt herei s a securityi ssue.T he pubo wnersr efuset o raiset heir fenceu nlessw e pay
for it althoughi t is their responsibility. (LetterB attached).W e arev e~ concernedth at
this will increaseif they openl ater, whent herei s evenl essc hanceo f~ing seen.T he pub
is clearly not concerneda nd unlikely to do anythinga boutt his.
Customers leaving the pub disturb residents on the street side of the building already.
There are more problems when the pub has an extension and regular late hours will disturb
sleeping residents. The government intends to cut down on binge drinlfing as well as
crime and disorder but the type of behaviour we have seenw ill increase if the extension is
allowed.
There are plenty of other late night venues in the area; there is no need !for another one
next door to quiet residential housing.
Other local pubs near residential housing have to stop outside noise before normal closing
time (The Trinity in Trinity Gardens). The Hope and Anchor should have ~e same
constraints, but the current tenantsh ave ignored their previous promises an~ we do not believe
they will comply in the future unless the constraint is enforced.
'~...A,TOP'
In conclusion, this extensions hould be refused on the grounds of all fourlof the licensing
objectives. In addition, the pub tenantsh ave not shown any responsibili towards their
neighbourss o the Hope and Anchor should also have to comply with the samet erms and
conditions on noise levels that other local pubs nearh omesh ave to abidelby. They should
have to keep their music and other noise down to a reasonablel evel for a Ir esidential area even
during daytime, including summerw eekends.
Yoursf aithfully
Lee Morris
56 SandhurstC ourt
Acre Lane
SW25TX
SAND HURST COURT L TD
RegisteredO ffice: 14S andhursCt ourt Acre Lane London SW25IX Telephone0: 20 75018554
Directon: M Keating.M Klein, L. MOITisA. . O'Neill J. SteeleR, Webb Co-Secn:tary:))L o~
E-mail: SandhurstCourt@!):ahoo.co.uk RegistratioNn umber:3 149812
August2 2004
Public Protection( Licensing)
London Borough of Lambeth
2 HemeH ill road
London
SE24 OAU
Attached is a petition from our flats, requesting that the Hope and Anchor license
application should have somer estrictions. As you will see, most of!t he building does
not want to be kept awake anymore -50% of the building overlooks the back of the
pub and will be affected seriously. Only a few residents,y oung singles, wanted to
have music and entertainmentn ext door, the rest of us decided we neededo ur sleep!
The residentsh ave signed on two sheets,b ut there are also 4 emailed supportersa lso
attached. We have also attachedl etters and emails confirming the types of problems
we have had with this pub. I
Severalp eople are on holiday, but told us before they left that they would also like to
sign the letter when it was finished, would it be possible for these residentst o add
their namest o the petition after the August 4 cut off date?
SANDHURST COURT LTD
RegisteredO ffice: 14 SandhursCt ourt Acre Lane London SW25IX Telephone0: 20 75018554
Directors:M Keating,M K:JcinL, . MIHris,A . O'Neill, J. SteeleR, Webb Co-SccreIaryD: Logan
E-mail: SandhurstCoul1l'"ij;yahoo.co.uk RegistrationN umber3: 149812
25 July 2005
Public Protection( Licensing)
LambethB orougho f Lambeth
2 HerneH ill Road
London SE24O AU
Dear Sirs.
Application for licensee xtension- Hope and Anchor. Acre Lane. SW2
We are flat owners and residents of SandhurstC ourt. We live in a quiet block of 57 flats next
door to the above pub. One side of our building is less than 5 yards from the pub, about 25
flats overlook the pub backgarden,t he others overlook the street side. There are also other
houses next door, very close to the pub garden, others are being built. Our residents include
the elderly, children and babies.
We have tried unsuccessfully to sort out the existing problems with the pub tenants and
owners, before we knew they had applied for this extension. The notice in the pub window
states that they are applying to continue until lam some nights and 2am on 24 nights a year,
although the application details on the internet do not mention this.
We object to the above extension as the increased noise and security problems would seriously
affect our enjoyment of our homes and our lovely garden, particularly during the summer.
The extension would be contrary to all the Act's four main licensing objectives.
Noise from the pub disturbs residents, including the children, particularly those
overlooking the back of the pub and its garden. The pub have to open their windows, even
in winter, and they always use the garden in warmer weather. Despite c:omplaints,
sporadically noise continues until 11.30 or midnight, on June 182005 it continued until
lam, well beyond the stipulated time. Even in daytime there are times we cannot hear the
television, have a normal conversation or enjoy our garden. It will stop us sleeping if they
are licensed for late night live or recorded music as well as dancing. We believe this would
be a public nuisancet o residents as well as harming children who are unable to sleep.
We havet ried to reasonw ith the pub tenantsb ut we now realiset hat they will not stickt o
anyp romisesto respectt heir neighboursT. herew as no improvemenet venw henw e
contactedth e pub landlords( Letter A attached).A s the noisei s sporadica t the momenti t
is difficult to arrangef or the noiset eamt o hear it althoughm ayb e ablet o arrangei t.
Therei s a public safetyi ssuea s peoplec an climb the pubf encei nto our garden. If they
openl ater,t herei s lessc hanceo f someoneb eings een.O ne actuallyb roke into our
building. The police dealtw ith him andt he pubt old our caretaketrh at he workedt here.
Theyh aver efusedt o pay for the damagea nd claim the incidentd id not happena lthough
we havet he crime number( 121131 8/04)a ndt he police will confirm, 020 73261212.
(Emailed statemenat ttached)O. thersh avec limbed overt he fence,r ecentlyt wo children.
Theyd id not causea nyt rouble but clearlyt here is a securityi ssue.T he pubo wnersr efuse
to raise their fenceu nlessw e pay for it althoughi t is their responsibilit),.T he pub is
clearly not concerneda nd unlikely to do anythinga boutt his. (Letter B attached).
Customers leaving the pub disturb residents on the street side of the building already, even
when they leave in small groups. Regular late hours will wake up those residents, causing
a public nuisance and harm to the children.
.
-J/L
Signed
()<:7~l""'>
/ ;.;.- ,
/ /'
/
/
/
of ~~~ ~ C'Q L '70
~../~7
~~Jt\~k.(:i
I~ 'L
<-u
,,1 ~~k- 1\
>
~
{ ~
L f1l).,.(Jl,1 S .s "
FLA="1
b 5.4:rJ~ Ht1.<-~'G7 MI<o7
".s \..V 2- ~ -r "f
1S"
~
1\ D\. ~ .,3-,-0S- J
',1,~,(
~~~ ~a...'t ~\\..J..,'"2.~(~ \ ,
"34 ~w o ~ '/2ed,Q "'-'
~ ~'2.. ~ \ 'f--
"6 0 ~~ It~i
tIb i-~/ .t-~~~~~; ~-
I
L
/Ztt~t ] ~
fLILt-
'!2r1e91- .
tf£rt
3
~
4 5 <;::'h~/'~~?
W~~
Q.I~~Q.o..JA'-1--i~v
+9,
r~
rL~1
.S'~l)ilcJf227'"
There are plenty of other late night venues in Brixton, there is no need for anothero ne
next door to quiet residential housing. The Licensing Act intends to prevent public
nuisance and disorder and this extensionw ould be contrary to the Act.
Other local pubs near residential housing have to stop outside noise before nonnal closing
time -like The Trinity in Trinity Gardens. The Hope and Anchor should have the same
constraints. We are not impressed by the responsibility shown by the current tenantsw ho
have ignored their previous promises and we do not believe they will comply in the future
unless the constraint is enforced.
In conclusion, this extension should be refused on the grounds of all four of the licensing
objectives. In addition, the pub tenants have not shown any responsibility towards their
neighbours so the Hope and Anchor licence should be varied so they have to comply with the
same terms and conditions on noise levels as other local pubs near homes. They should have
to keep their music and other noise down to a reasonable level for a residential area even
during daytime, including summer weekends. We believe this would be in line with
government undertakings to reduce drinking and disorder problems for ordinary members of
the public trying to enjoy their homes in peace.
/l'2~
Signed
~
::::f
I LrL~ Mfg'
/
1-
f=L f:I 'T 30.
(2 ~Q -Ff Qj;:2 c.
tf ;;--~~ q~ Fl-q- -~q b
/11~1 , K.Jp-~
1=J;:j- II
4-~
Cl-\{U~
""\ f( i
~~i
~.e~lf~t~+
~.ti, k'"~hV18( FLAT
r)~~/~~ FLAt I~
-~~~;~~
($gJD7;.J
'
Print -Close Window
To: "Jenny Sandhurst Court" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Late Night Music and Entertainment licence for pub
From: "kathryn" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:31:52 +0000 GMT
Dear Jenny
Please accept this email as a formal endorse ment of your s~mission on
Sandhurst Court's behalf to the licensing authorities in coQnection
with the application by the Hope and Anchqr for an extension and
enhancement of their operating licence. !
As the owner of a flat that over19oks our garden, I have frequently
been aware of both the noise nuis~nce and the incursion of bpld and
indisciplined pub customers into our private garden. This i$ quite
unacceptable, and causes both compromise to my quiet enjoyment of the property
and anxiety about invasive trespass.' .
I feel very strongly that it would be a demonst~ably antisoc~al move,
were a licence extension to be granted.
Yours,
Kathryn Edwards
Flat 18
Original Message I
~~~:~ u_~>
To:Lee Morris <[email protected]>, rots
<mt~_~~rlagem~nt~it~@h~t_m~-.ii. ~2~>' "Tony O'Neill" I.
<~_ne.iJ:.J:.~!.-:::q~~~~~_:g~>, Ramesh Patel <~~m~~hp?:~e_~~Q@_h~~!p~~__~9_ml_>~,
PerseusPropertyCo <~~~~_@P~_f_s~u_§pr?pe~~Y:~9~>, Mike Raymond
<~i~ra~q@ya_h90.c.q.u_~>, Rachael Robinson <[email protected]_~t.*a~~~com>,
Junior Rocha <ju~~l?r ~qqh?~_chel~e~t_,~~,?.~~>, Sophie Sh<t>tton
<Sophj,~ ,$h9_t~_<?~@_1?~~s~_~~~>, Silvercrown <:?9ayq~~~~Ye.rcf~w_n_._co~.k >,
Eleanor Simmons <el~a~~~.~_si~?~s@yah9O:~? ~~>" Annabel Smyth
<~n~a~~1~9~~~yt~,?~~,<?:~~~6:u~>, Robert & Annabel Smyth
<,?myt_~~@-~~vo: ~>, Jenny Steele <~e~~y:[email protected], _~g>_.uk>,
Pierre-Jean Stracuzzi <pi~r;r~@pji~:~o".~_k>, Jim Tunney
<j~~~~~~~i_rc?~,_n~_~>, Rick Webb <:J;'~!:;:~~_~~~refr_~n_k,-c.o_m>, I!'lavio
Alvares <[email protected]_~ab!":l~~_:~~~u~>, JOHN BARRETT
<j_fp_a:r,:~~tt~p_tinte~~~t -,t-; ::o~>, Richard Barrett
<~i~h?~d- ~~_r;r~tt~~~~_~und~rma~,~.C?m>, Julian Blake
<j~..l~~-~Q~O~Y:~-l}~:-Q~o _~uk-> , Rodney Blake-ston
<~qdn~_y:pJa_~_est<?n@h9t~a_-~iJI"? ~>, Mark Breslin
<~?rk_al?r_e_sl~~@y:a h~o: co._~k>, Mark Breslin
<mqf15,b!~s..l~n~a?~qcn~~§.co.uk>, Maria Brown
<[email protected]>, Breno Brown-Leao
<~r;;;~:;:.. ?!~~~~r;~~q@~~~g~~~ta_n_~e'y:~ o~>, Peter Burrell
<p_ete_~r pyr~~ll~ve~tura:c~m>, Charlie Burrow
<~harli_e,[email protected]:J-peX.C9~>, Kirk Clarke
<Kirk:~1?_rk~_1@BTop_e_;:1~o.J;'1_~:y_o~>, Alan Crisp <acrisp:~c~vU org>, Chris
Dew <Chrisdewl97.7@hotm?~1.com>, Ed Dicks <eddicks@hot~ il.corr.>,
Kathryn Edwards <kathrynedwards@cl,ilra.net'>, Mary Evans
<t;:!'o.~~,gray@nottir!gha~ci~y.goV.U~>i ~Odd Greenwell
<todd_greenwelJ-~t:t-otmail,com>, Sh{lne Hackett
28/07/2005