The Licensing Committee met to consider an application for a new premises licence for Unit 8 Titan Business Estate, trading as Deptford Junction. The application was met with objections from local residents, and after hearing from all parties, the committee members went into a private session to discuss the application. The decision of the committee will be made available within five working days.

Unit 8 Titan Business Estate, Ffinch Street

Mark Walker applied for a new premises licence for Unit 8 Titan Business Estate, Ffinch Street, trading as Deptford Junction. The application [Redacted Application Form] requested permission to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, and to provide live and recorded music on Fridays and Saturdays between 23:00 and 03:00. The applicant also requested a seasonal variation to extend these hours until 03:00 on any day preceding a bank holiday.

Background

Angela Mullen Moral, Safer Communities Officer, told the committee that the application had been received on 27 May 2025 and advertised according to the legal requirements. Six representations [Redacted Objections] had been received from members of the public, but none from responsible authorities¹. She also noted that the premises had applied for 16 temporary event notices² since August 2024, and that four complaints had been received against these.

Mark Walker, the applicant, told the committee that Deptford Junction is a small family business that wants to offer opportunities for local musicians to play music in a social environment. He said that the venue had already been used for Christmas events, a Christmas market, a clothes sale, and a choir. He also said that he had worked in social services previously, and that this was a new venture for him.

Mr Walker said that he had been in regular contact with the licensing colleagues and the fire brigade, and that he had visited other local bars and businesses to get advice. He also said that he had installed a sound wall to reduce the amount of noise coming from the building.

Councillor Bill Brown asked about condition number 14, regarding the dispersal policy. Mr Walker said that the venue has security staff who usher people through to Ffinch Street and direct them to the high street.

Councillor David Walker asked why the applicant was requesting a licence until 01:30 on Thursdays and 03:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, given that Finch Street is a residential street and the trains from Deptford Railway Station are generally quiet after 22:00 or 23:00. Mr Walker responded that he had been approached by students from Goldsmiths and Trinity Laban Conservatoire who would like a local venue for music events after their studies.

Councillor Billy Harding asked about the drywall that is shown on the plan, and how the venue would respond to noise complaints. Mr Walker said that the drywall is already in place, and that the venue tries to address any issues that people complain about.

Councillor Kim Powell suggested that the venue should put a system in place so that local residents can contact them quickly if there are any problems. Mr Walker said that this was a very good suggestion, and that he would look into it.

Councillor Chris Barnham asked for clarification on whether the application was mainly about music, and whether live or recorded music would only be played after 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. Mr Walker confirmed that this was the case, and that the hours leading up to 03:00 would mainly be for live music and recorded music.

Councillor Natasha Burgess asked about a complaint that had been made to the owners of the business about noise when the premises were used as a practice studio. Mr Walker said that this had been resolved by building the sound wall.

Councillor Yemisi Anifowose, Chair of the Committee, asked when the last complaint had been received. Mr Walker said that it would have been in May or June, as there had not been an event in July.

Objections

Six local residents spoke to object to the application.

Objector one presented images of the location of the premises and the surrounding area. She said that the railway viaduct and the height of the buildings funnels noise towards the residential block of Flamingo Court, and that the platform confines and amplifies the noise. She also said that she had complained several times about noise from people drinking outside the venue.

She said that the suggested conditions to restrict the use of the outdoor space beyond 23:00 were not sufficient, and that the licensed activities would impose an unreasonable additional noise burden on residents, create a public nuisance on a regular basis, and negatively impact the conditions of people around the venue.

In response to questions, she said that she had made three complaints, and that she had noticed an improvement in the noise from inside the venue after the sound wall was installed, unless the door was open.

Objector two was not present at the meeting.

Objector three said that she lives in a building on Finch Street directly adjacent to the business estate where the venue is located. She said that the noise from the venue has been significantly disruptive, and that a permanent licence would only escalate the disturbance. She also said that people are leaving the venue with open containers of alcohol and continuing to drink in public, which she found unacceptable.

In response to questions, she said that Finch Street is a short, narrow street, and that she barely hears anything from the station. She also said that she had contacted the venue by email after an event in June, but had not managed to follow up.

Objector four, Mario, said that he lives in Flamingo Court with his family, and that his bedroom windows face directly towards the venue. He said that he is concerned about the evening and night noise affecting his children's sleep, and that he worries about a domino effect with other arches being used as late-night venues.

In response to questions, he said that he had not made any formal complaints, but that he had noticed an increase in late night noise since the venue opened.

Objector five, Linda Enstein, said that she is a partner of Vicky Clark, who had made a written objection. She said that she lives above objector three, and that she has noticed a massive increase in the noise level in Deptford in recent years. She also said that people are congregating outside her flat after the venue closes, shouting, arguing, and drinking. She said that she has a five-year-old child, and that she is very concerned about being woken up in the middle of the night.

In response to questions from Councillor Powell, she said that she had gone out and asked people to move along, but that they did not react immediately and were still there 20 minutes later. She also said that she did not feel that the venue makes people aware that they should not be loud or take drinks outside.

Objector six, Keith, said that the applicant has chosen the wrong site, and that it is a light industrial area that is generally in daytime use. He referred to Lewisham's own licensing policy document, which states that nightclubs are not appropriate in a local hub³ such as Deptford High Street. He said that the impact on residents would be appalling, and that people would move out, resulting in a dead high street.

In response to questions, he said that he was not aware of any other businesses on the estate that operate late into the evening as a nightclub venue. He also said that there are no similar establishments on the high street with a licence until 03:30 in the morning.

Concluding Statements

Mr Walker responded to the points that had been raised by the objectors. He said that the dispersal policy is to direct people along Finch Street to the high street, and that the venue does not allow people to leave with drinks. He also said that he had tried to contact objector three to discuss their complaint, but had not been able to reach them.

Objector three said that when the venue opened last year, it was immediately noticeable from the amount of noise coming from inside and outside the venue. She also said that she has video evidence of people leaving the venue with open drinks in hand.

Objector four said that he is most worried about the late night licence, and that he thinks a 3am licence is not going to work in this residential area.

Objector five said that the noise level in her immediate vicinity has definitely increased, and that she is concerned about the mental well-being of her family and neighbours due to interrupted sleep at night.

Objector six said that he was unaware of the other venues that the applicant had mentioned, as they do not make a great deal of disturbance and are all on the high street. He also said that he thinks that this is the wrong decision, and that the councillors should refer back to Lewisham's own licensing policy.

Following the statements, Councillor Harding declared that he had experienced internet outages during the hearing and would sit out the vote. Andrew Atkinson, Legal advisor, advised that Councillor Harding should also not take part in the deliberation.