Southwark Council to refuse licenses

My situation is not nearly as bad as Zoe's, but I live off Bermondsey Street, and there is definitely a lot of noise at closing time, especially in the warmer weather. People wander slowly along the street on their way home, talking at the top of their lungs and sometimes getting into shouting matches. In summer they will hang out in the park opposite my flat for awhile, having loud conversations. I think anyone who lives anywhere near a pub has similar experiences.

Returning to the original topic for a moment....somewhat frustrating that the consultation paper is a pdf... I don't have a printer. I tend to deal with these things straight away or forgot to do them. Did I miss something - can you complete online or email it?

Sorry for the interruption to the lively debate!

Thanks

James

Just a reminder that the public meeting is this coming Monday
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/whatson/event/6805

The results of the consultation will be considered by the licensing committee on Thursday 8 October:
http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=3067

The licensing committee has agreed to recommend to the council executive that they proceed with the Borough & Bankside saturation policy:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4145

Crazy stuff. Areas such as the riverside path are completely different to, say, BHS or Long Lane. Whoever thought up this scheme to lump them all into a saturation zone together needs their bumps feeling

This Saturation Zone would only have been implemented if there was sufficient evidence, including statistics, to support it.

It appears that those damning statistics include 'late night violence against the person' in BHS and St Georges Circus, unfortunately.

It still does not mean that all licenses will be refused of course.

Yes, and I'm all in favour of taking licenses away from places which can't control violence on their doorsteps.

If statistics exist which show VAP crime and show a link to specific places, then why aren't the council cracking down on those existing places?

Existing violent behaviour will not be reduced or altered by making it harder for any new places to open.

And if these statistics show VAP hotspots around BHS/Borough tube station, then I struggle to see why that causes the need for a saturation zone which covers a huge and diverse area. The zone stretches from quiet residential streets, to student halls, a major hospital and rail station, and the South Bank. The idea that you can sensibly apply one policy across those very different areas is madness, imho.

Violence does not necessarily occur on the doorsteps of licensed premises, it also happens in the quieter streets around them.

The Licensing Act 2003 makes it a bit more difficult to crack down on those existing places.

The saturation Zone is not such a big deal anyway.
It merely requires the applicant to demonstrate what measures they will take to make sure they do not contribute to any existing problems.

An extremely reasonable and responsible request which should have been built into the original legislation, imho.

It does not remotely mean that licenses will be automatically refused as the heading to this thread suggests.

i totally agree with you invanhoe. why not look at existing licences in this so called random saturation zone?
we have serious issues on flat iron square/union street, where the local homeless hang out and cause serious nuisance by getting drunk and violent.
i can't believe how the shops on this square can still be able to sell to these guys when there is a such an obvious problem.
the shopkeepers don't care and mostly don't live in the area.
people selling alcohol should be made more responsible. like a bar that refuses a drink to a customer who obviously had too much already.