KICC GET PREMISES LICENCE – BUT CAN’T OPEN FULLY JUST YET
THE PENTECOSTAL CHURCH which owns the cinema building at 25 Church Road have been granted a premises licence – but they will have to wait before they can open their doors fully.
A licensing committee at Bromley civic centre on Tuesday morning approving the application said that before introducing any of the proposed licensable activities the church – Kingsway International Christian Centre MUST:
(a) Submit a fire risk assessment in relation to capacity of the premises and exits for all types of use, to the London Fire and Emergencies Planning Authority (LFEPA) for their approval. When approved by the LFEPA, a copy will be submitted to Bromley council as licensing authority, and
(b) Submit to the licensing authority a dispersal plan covering the exit of occupants of the premises, including persons loading and unloading supplies and equipment, for the approval of the licensing authority.
The licensing committee’s decision came after Crystal Palace residents Rosie Hunter – whose Patterson Road home backs onto the rear of the building – and Francis Bernstein along with Crystal Palace ward Cllr Angela Wilkins raised serious concerns over traffic, noise and other issues about the proposals.
Mr Adeolu Aluko, business development manager for KICC The Open Door, told the licensing committee: “The Open Door as it is right now the premises we bought at the moment are D2 usage.
“We need an entertainments licence to carry out some of those events. “A lot of people have come in to try and use the building and one of the things that’s limiting the use of the building is the fact we don’t have an entertainments licence.
“People have to apply for a TEN (temporary event notice) with a capacity of 499. “Once I tell them we don’t have a premises licence it discourages them and they don’t want to use it any more.
“Any event we do have we will have traffic ushers looking after people parking. “We are also talking to the police about hiring cones from them so we ensure we limit people stopping.
“We are just outside a bus stop.
“We as an organisation are really ready to enhance D2 use.”We’ve had wedding receptions, a fashion show – there are so many enquiries.
“We had a comedy club who use Lewisham theatre. “They said ‘We find your building to be more beautiful and more accommodating.’ “But when we said we don’t have a premises licence at the moment and they would have to apply for a TEN they got discouraged. “This is the story so far.”
Mr Bernstein asked if sound limiters had been in force at an event he attended at 25 Church Road on February 28th. Told they were, Mr Bernstein said the event was “exceptionally loud” and well over 100 decibels. Mr Aluko: “It was not”
Mr Bernstein: “Why was it neighbours 20 metres away could hear what was going on?”
At this point Mr Phillips interjected and said the event was not licensable and not controlled by a licence. He told Mr Bernstein: “We haven’t set the noise level yet. “If it was as disturbing we’d never set the noise level that high.
“It’s only for amplifiers. “We can’t do anything about singing. “If we decided to control it there would be a noise a limiter and we would set it.”
Mr Bernstein said music was going on after 11am in what was a commercially-driven operation. Performers had twice gone to the mixing desk and said ‘Put up the volume’ “If there’s going to be a noise limiter it needs to be a tamper-proof one.”
Mr Aluko responding said: “Quite a lot of things Francis Bernstein has said are not true. “You seem to know more about my building and organisation than I do” but did not elaborate on this.
Rosie Hunter – described by Cllr Wilkins as “working in the events management sector and having enormous knowledge” – said that during one event she was sitting in her front room and, over someone listening to a tablet, could hear noise from the venue.
“My seven-year-old daughter could hear screaming – through double glazing” she added.
The noise limiter should be set at 90 decibels, not 94, she argued Soundproofing should be considered as part of the licence.
Rosie Hunter said she had given some thought to reasonable conditions to limit the impact on neighbours. “I don’t want to spend the next two years coming to officers with logbooks and complaints.”
She asked for no dispersal after events via the back lane and no vehicles unloading there between 8pm and 8am.
Answering questions from Cllr Wilkins, Mr Aluko said there would be no alcohol on the premises. “If there’s some corporate event like BT directors want to come in, have a glass of wine with a meal, we don’t have a problem with that.”
Team lead licensing officer Stephen Phillips said that would need a TEN (temporary event notice) of which 12 a year up to a maximum of 21 days would be allowed. “You could do one a month or a TEN could last for seven days” he added.
Summing up Mr Aluko said they did not want to disturb the neighbours. “We’re there to make friends.
“I do understand Rosie Hunter might have some objections but I can assure you there are people there saying great things about what we’ve done . “The building is ready to be used and we’re ready to comply with any regulations imposed on us.”
Rosie Hunter said one resident who did have a conversation with KICC was not happy.
And KICC had still not responded to the letter of January 31st asking for a voluntary agreement, she added. (See: CINEMA BUILDING: RESIDENTS TELL CHURCH OWNERS TO ‘CEASE AND DESIST’ February 20th)
In a statement after the hearing Bromley council explained: “Government guidance states that licence conditions should not duplicate other statutory provisions, but to be mindful of these.
“In relation to capacity restrictions, the sub committee took the view that the LFEPA had the specialised knowledge to impose an appropriate capacity restriction if necessary and imposed a condition to this effect.
“Whilst the sub committee recognised that they were not the appropriate authority to deal with traffic and parking issues, it nevertheless felt that it would be reasonable and proportionate for a condition to be imposed enabling the licensing authority to approve a suitable dispersal plan for persons leaving the premises.
“It was confirmed that the noise team would set the noise limitation device for amplified sound at a level which they, in their professional opinion deemed appropriate and that they were the appropriate authority with powers to deal with any noise nuisance problems relating to the premises.
“The sub committee were mindful of the fact that planning issues were not matters for them to consider, but that the majority of the activities forming part of the application fell within the permitted use of the premises, and the local planning authority was the appropriate authority to consider whether the carrying out of any licensable activity formed a breach of planning control.”
