Wednesday, 22 November 2006

Busta newsflash!!!!!

Dear lovely listeners, weloveplumstead has broken some important news. As I am getting lazy in my old age, here it is copy & pasted :-

Dear Everyone,

There are several changes in the Busta situation that have taken place over the last few days which have been reported to weloveplumstead:

1. The developer/license applicant has reported to the Council his wish to change the name of the venue back to "The Ship".

2. The application is for a pub, not a nightclub.

3. The windows are now being restored; removal of the bricks commenced this afternoon.

In light of the above changes, along with the shortened almost-pub hours on the licensing application, the pressure to object and protest is significantly reduced. Residents of Wernbrook have even had a chance to chat with the developer/license applicant and he is clearly demonstrating a willingness to listen to and work with residents to live side-by-side peacefully.

If you are still concerned and would like to register your concern with the relevant authorities you can still:

1. Write a letter to Local Councillors and/or the Licensing Office as you see fit in light of the new developments.

2. Sign a the petition, which is available for concerned people to sign at the Chapter Two bookshop on Plumstead Common Road.

The pressure seems to be off and we should breathe a sigh of relief, but keep a watchful eye on the new Ship!

Please spread the word about these updates to concerned people.

Finally, a notice of the application hearing date should be released by the Council in a few weeks time. Please keep your eye out for that and be sure to come along if you can.

WELOVEPLUMSTEAD

39 comments:

waverleygirl said...

Tremendous news! let's keep our fingers crossed. Can this renewed application be seen anywhere?

The Last Boy Scout said...

More proof that community action does work.

weloveplumstead said...

For those who have written about whether these changes are confirmed in writing, etc, I have rung the Council this morning and this is what I learned:

1. Yes, the Council have themselves received in writing the applicant's change to his license application regarding the name of the venue. The change is to keep the name The Ship (and not Bust Da Rhyme). The manager of the Licensing section who I spoke with said this change came after she met together with the applicant and the police to discuss the suitability of the premises and the name to the local area. It was suggested to the applicant that the name should be kept at The Ship, as Bust Da Rhyme might have various negative implications.

2. Yes, the change will be available in writing via the Licensing section website "as soon as possible":
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/YourEnvironment/NewLicensesGuideForResidents/ViewApplications.htm
And, I was told that, yes, the changed application should also be displayed on The Ship building. It was explained to me that the staff are trying to catch up with work as many of them have been on courses this week and have not had time to update the website. The applicant will be notified to update the poster displaying the license application.

3. It was also confirmed by the manager of the Licensing section that this application is for a pub, not a club.

I hope this helps those who have wondered about the legitimacy of the new information.

WELOVEPLUMSTEAD

Anonymous said...

I believe we should still object on at least the following:

1. Supply of Alcohol: Monday-Friday until 23.00 (not sure if this is something we can get reduced to 22.00 due to the location and proximity to residential area); Friday/Saturday until midnight; Sundays until 23.00; holidays 0100.

2. Recorded Music, we are objecting full stop, if this is a pub is doesnt need to pump out music all day/night into a residential neighborhood. If however we can not stop the application then most specifically we will object to music until 23.00 during the week; Friday/Saturday until midnight; Sundays until 23.00 and holidays until 0100. At least, it should end earlier to allow disbursal of the patrons prior to 23.00.

2. Dancing, again we object full stop, but specifically during the week until 23.00; Fridays/Saturday until midnight; Sunday until 23.00 and holidays until 0100. Again, at least, the hours should end earlier to allow disbursal of the patrons prior to 23.00.

Finally, if the music and dancing application go through, then shouldn't the serving of alcohol stop *at least* an hour before closing to allow the proper "cooling off" period before the place closes?

Any other thoughts?

Anonymous said...

1. Supply of Alcohol:
You will never get the licence reduced to 22:00, they are applying for normal pub hours.

2. Recorded Music.
You need this even to have a juke box. Check out what the "Noise Breakout Level" is that they will have to adhere to, it should be fairly quiet as it is in a residential area. If it becomes too loud and a nuisance, you can contact the "Noise Abatement Officer" at Greenwich Council, he/she has the power to shut them down.

2. Dancing, again we object full stop.
Totally agree with you on this.

"cooling off" period before the place closes?
I don't think that there is any precedent in law on this, but it is a very good idea!

The Last Boy Scout said...

The old ship used to have live bands at weekends. So it would be hard to object against these condition. Especially when surrounding pubs have longer licening hours. Admittedly with restrictions.

The Plumster said...

This is really great news. Good here Mr Busta is the listening type. When does he start interviewing for chefs?

Anonymous said...

It may be great news for some, but not for those who are right on top of the "Busted Ship".

People please help us to stay on top of this objection and don't give up!

We do not want the applicant to think he can charm us into submitting and possibly slowly working back to his original plans of operation. Remember the original intentions and the clientele being targeted.

Do we really need another pub in the area competiting with those already here? Especially do we need one so close to a residential area?

Please dont give up! Please continue to write in with objections, your neighbors and fellow citizens are relying on your help!

Anonymous said...

Um a pub that opens until 10pm with an hours cooling off period? What??? OK i didnt want a place like Bust Da Rhymes in the neighbourhood but how is Plumstead ever going to gentrify if people want to impose such inane restrictions. I would like my house to rise in price and the area to get restaurants and bars, shops etc, with that kind of attitude who the hell is going to want to open a business.
Busta - open a nice bar or gastro pub and you will be busy.
Good God 10pm???????????????

Anonymous said...

Busta isnt wanting to open a nice pub or gastro pub, just because the name has changed back to the The Ship doesnt mean they want to change anything fundamentally different.

I TOO want my house prices to rise and Plumstead to become a thriving safe community, but allowing just another pub, a nightclub, a members club, etc isn't going to be the start of regeneration to the area.

If your house was on top of the place, as our is, you might consider proposing the same "inane restrictions"

Good God another pub??????

Anonymous said...

Scout didn't The Ship use to have strippers on a Sunday too? So I suppose it would be hard to object to that?

The Last Boy Scout said...

Anonymous 11:52:48, I've never heard that about strippers in the past, you obviously are aware of that though.

If, and I mean a big if, we are simply going to get a pub, called the ship then it's not too much of problem. As lond as it stays that way, anything other than that is a no no.

Besides the Ship, used to form one of the "five idols" (the five main pubs) of Plumstead which dates back to the late 1800's. All i'm saying is that considering it used to be a pub, it would be hard to object to it being a pub, when you consider there has been a pub there for over 100 years. The Busta club thing is a different ball game though, and i'm glad he's changed his mind.

streetwise said...

My feeling is: DO NOT RELAX ON THIS.
Nothing much has changed really. OK earlier closing but 12 is still too late for such a venue in a residential area. Dancing to recorded music, bouncers on the door, restricted numbers (ie queues outside) . . . its all in the application viewable by appt at Riverside Ho. Still absolitely not the kind of "pub" for Plumstead. Drive along Bellegrove Road to Bexleyheath on a Fri or Sat night and see what I mean. Stay on the case Plumsteadshire listeners or I suspect you will feel you've been hoodwinked once the place is open.

The Last Boy Scout said...

Streetwise. Fair point, I hadn't seen the revised application.

But bearing in my what I said in my last comment, we have to be quite specific if we argue that we jsut don;t want a pub there, we will lose. We need to say way this "type of pub" is not suitable.

Anonymous said...

Precisely, but it cannot be based on ASSUMPTIONS. really people! COME ON. let's be reasonable.

we can't just put forward emotive and emotional NIMBY reactions; even if that's how we really feel! we can't object because of the imagined customers this place might attract, what the place used to be, what it might be, etc.

You MUST object on fact-based grounds according what the license applied is requesting and the what Council guidelines allow in terms of grounds for objection.

People need to remember that the Old Mill is a nice quiet pub, but it also has a license til 3am(!) which is could use every night if it wanted to. Also all pubs in this will have recorded music licenses to have their jukeboxes.

BUT of course there's the dancing issue. FAIR ENOUGH. object to that on reasonable grounds. write a letter. but whining about what we want, we could be, what will make house prices go up... if this goes on it will seem impossible for anyone to open up a new business in the area. It will never get "GENTRIFIED" because we'll look like a bunch of conservative nutters. i am thinking of Footloose here - no dancing in our town... or we'll burn you in a wicker man! is that what Plumstead Commoners are?? I don't think so.

If you object, write a SENSIBLE letter to the council and/or sign the petition.

I am sympathetic with anxieties about this place. BUT stop whining like a bunch of conservative fanatics and be reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Ah, The Ship that never sailed......I've got no objection to a pub on this site providing its correctly managed, and the opening hours take into account its location. We should object to the dancing licence though, and can someone please ask Busta to take the rusty lamp-post off the roof!!!

Anonymous said...

I am certainly not a "conservative nutter" anything but I would like to add to the above debate that even though Mr Busta may have been on some kind of charm mission with local residents we should not relax on this issue.
Yes you need a recorded license to play a juke box - but dont you think it likely that music volumes will be considerably higher to accompany a 'dancing' venue than they would be for say the gentle background music in the star or the old Mill.

I have read the new application and there is nothing to say what the noise level will be kept to, or how the noise will be prevented from escaping to the local environment.

I have been unable to find out anything about the sound proofing in this place, or any measures taken such as the provision of double doors / keeping windows closed etc. If anyone knows how we ascertain this info then please share it with us here.

In the old application the applicant did include proposals to have a 'cooling off period' prior to closing to allow for quiet and effective dispersal. The old application also spoke of music being reduced to a 'low level' prior to closing, and of course they were suggesting a members club/pub before. The cooling off time, the reduction in noise for a period prior to closing have now gone from the application, whilst as an earlier listener commented they are still describing bouncers on the door etc.

I still think we need to be very careful about what is being proposed here, and ensure that we we still send in our letters of objection so that the council is very clear what is and is not acceptable to us as local people.

Meanwhile, if I win the lottery tomorrow lets buy Busta out, and open a decent place to eat round here!!!

The Headless 291 Driver said...

I can see both sides of the argument here and it looks like it's going to become quite a divide. Previously we all longed for Busta to listen and provide something more suitable to the area than a nightclub. I think everyone was right on this, he was way off the mark with such an outlandish name for the place. So now we have 3 camps, those that think he's listened and those that think he is trying to do this via the backdoor and those who just don't want anything fullstop.

Those who don't want anything I think will be dissapointed. As other posters have said, it was a pub only a few years ago and has been for a 100 years, it's suitability for a residential area is unlikely to really be seen as an issue. Every pub in Plumstead that I can think of around the Common are in a residential area, The Who'Da Thought It by The Slade has houses on all sides and has a late licence until 12/1 on Friday/Saturday. I guess no resident ever wants a pub on their doorstep for fear of disruption but then it really just becomes an individual choice rather than a community one.

The Ship in a previous incarnation did indeed have strippers on a sunday.

If concerned about noise I would get in touch with these people. http://www.noiseabatementsociety.com/tcms/view.do?page=280

We can't expect The Porterhouse to come to Plumstead at this stage but I agree that we should be careful on scaring off would be gentrifiers. A pub with dancing is not right but a pub with normal opening hours can't really be the devil....can it?

The Plumster said...

Very well put Headless291. I may be being naive, but a nightclub called Bust Da Rhyme is one thing, a pub called The Ship is hopefully something completely different. I won't be objecting further, but I'll certainly be keeping a close eye on any future attempts to extend the opening hours.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are right the Who'da thought it, is right in the middle of a residential area ............ and only a few weeks ago it had yet another yellow board outside asking for witnesses to a serious late night assault. My friends live a few hundred yards from the venue and have experienced a number of ASB type problems on their doorstep ...just cos something similar exists elsewhere, doesnt mean that we should emulate it ...

Yes a pub has been on the site of the ship for 100+ years - but lets still write to the council to ensure that they are mindful to restrict the licence to what is right for the area ...
if people feel that a pub with dancing is "not right" then they need to make sure the licencing section are aware of this by writing to them. We live here, we have a right to ask the council to only licence what we think will be appropriate to our area.

Anonymous said...

If you don't want to live near a pub they don't buy a house near one, derelict or not. Plus there are numerous other pubs on your doorstep.
What kind of restrictions are some of you thinking you can get away with suggestion in your objection letters. It is a fine line between objecting on genuine grounds and quite frankly just being objectionable.
I think a new pub with hopefully updated decor, some background music and food would be welcomed. Not like The Star, Prince Albert or Old Mill are attracting any of the new crowd to Plumstead.

Anonymous said...

Why are there so many naive people on here?

Music, Dancing & doormen doesn't mean a nice pub. What it does mean is a nightclub with pub hours (for the time being) and shit loads of trouble.

Anonymous said...

you could also ask why there are so many negative people on here, similarly it doesn't mean Strinfellows is opening up on the common..
Why can't we expect The Porterhouse, aim high I say.

Anonymous said...

*Bangs head a against keyboard*

Let's try again shall we...

MUSIC + DANCING + BOUNCERS = NIGHTCLUB

You really aren't going to get the Porterhouse...unless you are Prakash and you can tell me different?

Anonymous said...

A comment made by someone some time ago...

"Having been a licensee of many venues in my time, although not a local resident, I thought I might comment.

I can see from the other comments that there is strong feeling against the granting of the license. Is there also strong feeling against the previous license before the premises were closed ?

If there are many objections, the licensee will almost certainly push to have a new license granted that is similar, if not identical, to the previous license. Within a few years (next Brewsters is 2008 I believe) there will be an application to vary this license and get where they wanted to go anyway, or maybe small steps per year. So letting any license be granted could just be letting the true horror in by the backdoor."

So just bear that in mind if you haven't yet written your letter

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Anon (music + dancing + bouncers = night club). Wishing and hoping and crossed fingers don't mean anything, only we can try to insure that what happens is appropriate for the area.

Speaking out against a new establishment isn't about being negative. The guy stated his business objectives upfront in the original application, which were for a members night club with music and dancing until 1/2am. It would only make sense that as a business person this would still be the long term objective. Does anyone know any different?

Leaving those points in his new application (music, dancing, bouncers) say to me he is trying to "softly" propose a nightclub and once he gets this little bit, could go for more later. Yes, The Star and The Mill, et al have music and/or dancing licences, but they never attempted becoming a nightclub.

We could only be so lucky that this place only opens up as a nice pub with "updated decor, some background music and food". Do you know for a fact that this is the plan? I don't have any information that this is the intention. Actually all signs still point to it being something else.

Is it so wrong to being concerned about having a potential NIGHTCLUB on our doorsteps and insuring that what does come is not going to ruin our neighborhood? Is it so wrong to stand up for our rights?

I agree we must make sensible objections and have done so, but isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Everyone wants to see this place through rose colored glasses now that there have been some minor capitulations, but I will only believe it when I see it.

For those of you who wish, you can cross your fingers if you like, but I suggest the rest of us write to the Council and state our views about what we feel is acceptable for our area.

Anonymous said...

The last person hits the nail on the head. Why on earth take the risk that it isn't going to be a nightclub? We should apply the "precautionary principle" here. I have already written objecting, saying inter alia:

"The fact that the opening hours in the new application would be somewhat shorter than those in the previous application is immaterial; what is important is the type of establishment proposed and the clientele it is likely to attract, viewed in the context of the surrounding area. Plumstead Common is not the right place for a music, dancing and drinking venue - we are a residential area and the proposed establishment is next to a Common. With shorter licensing hours, customers are likely simply to binge-drink faster and then to spill out onto the Common to continue their proclivities into the small hours. In all likelihood it will lead to an upsurge of anti-social behaviour and perhaps serious crime, and will act as a magnet to the drugs trade in the area."

Anonymous said...

If this license gets granted (which I really think it will) ... I very strongly suggest we become its patrons; that is, if you think yourself a well-mannered reasonably 'decent' person who won't get so drunk you'll throw up in a local resident's front garden (or even your own!). If people 'like us' turn up, maybe the offensive riff-raff we are horrifed about won't be interested in going there!

Seriously though... I'd like to note that there is a mention in the license application that this place is going to be a "wine bar" and at another point the applicant indicates his intention to provide "a cool relaxing atmosphere for the general public". I think this sounds very different from the scary booming nightclub everyone seems to be imagining in horror.

Anonymous said...

Once the licence is granted the holder is not obliged to pursue this commercial strategy.

Anonymous said...

Busta is a businessman, and he wanted to open a nightclub with a very silly name. I really don't think he will be satisfied with, or stop at what is currently proposed. With this in mind, it's probaly wise to object.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Mr Patel is necessarily as bad as we think. Sounds to me he was stupid and didn't know anything about the area (conservation, residential, history of the ship) when his first application was made. Now he knows all these things he has amended his plans. Yes, he is a business man, but he has also demonstrated his capacity to listen, to the residents' representations last time, to the police and the Council, etc. By all means, let's object to the things that concern us and can reasonably make a case for, but don't get so paranoid that you live in fear of this place. Isn't it better to have the venue cleaned up, rather than a run down boarded up shithole scaring the landscape around our beautiful common?

Anonymous said...

Sorry - so after seeing the 'history of the ship' - strip joint, drugs den (that's why it was closed down - correct me if I'm wrong) etc. What has he actually amended...Oh he's changed the name and shortened the hours well that's OK then. The bloke is an idiot - he couldn't run a bath let alone a nightclub.

What are you his PR man? You seem to know something about what has been amended so please...enlighten us.

And in answer to your last question..NO..not if means having a nightclub on my doorstep.

Anonymous said...

With regards to 'shithole scaring the landscape around our beautiful common' I have to walk past Carpet Corner every day.

The Plumster said...

I'm all for lively discussion, but I don't think bad language and personal insults have any place on this blog. Lets at least try and keep it constructive

Anonymous said...

oh I beg your pardon...what do you think a boy that want's to open a nightclub called bust da rhyme in a residential area is intelligent? Or perhaps you think that that Carpet Corner enhances the area around the common?

Please explain....

Dimps said...

What is the deadline for objections to the third application?

Anonymous said...

I wonder what people in Wernbrook Street think of all this?

Anonymous said...

pledge to improve plumstead common:
http://www.pledgebank.com/plumsteadcafe

Anonymous said...

Having had a look at your comments,has it occurred to any of you to go and meet the owner. I have, and he may look like a bit of a bad boy, but in fact is a very nice bloke. This is his first pub and so it is a case of him getting on a learning curve. As to the comments of he must be an idiot, at the end of the day he own's quite afew retail businesses and is quite sucessful. i say good luck to the bloke, you can't complain about something that hasn't happened yet! Give the man a chance and he may well suprise you.