The Licensing Sub Committee A met to discuss a temporary event notice (TEN) application for Drip, located at 27 Clerkenwell Road. The committee decided to refuse the application and serve a counter notice, citing concerns about potential public nuisance due to prior noise complaints.

Drip, 27 Clerkenwell Road - Temporary Event Notice

The committee considered a temporary event notice (TEN) application from Drip, a restaurant and club located at 27 Clerkenwell Road. The applicant, Reneta Dragneva, sought permission to host a late event with entertainment on 18 July. The Noise Team objected to the TEN application, and the committee ultimately decided to refuse the application and serve a counter notice.

Background

The Licensing Officer provided an update, noting the application was as presented in the agenda. The Noise Team representative reported that the current premises licence holder had transferred onto the licence in 2023, and there had been subsequent applications to change the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS). They added that since the new licence holder took over, the council had received various complaints of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

A noise abatement notice was issued on 7 June 2024, and since then, there had been twelve reports of noise nuisance. The Noise Team stated that a noise limiter was fitted in early 2025, but there had been statutory noise breaches, including one on 7 May at 02:19 and another on 8 June 2025 at 00:09. Fixed penalty notices (FPNs) were issued for both incidents. The Noise Team also noted that a previous TEN application had been rejected due to concerns about public nuisance.

In response to questions, the Noise Team clarified that noise nuisance is distinct from decibel levels and depends on several factors. They confirmed there was no evidence the noise limiter had been tampered with, but that bass noise caused the most disturbance and that the limiter did not prevent noise from travelling.

The Licensing Officer added that the premises had been closed for some time to install noise insulation, and a subsequent visit from licensing and the noise team suggested that the noise could not be heard from a neighbouring bedroom, indicating that something had gone wrong since then.

Applicant's Response

The applicant stated that they took their responsibilities under the Environmental Protection Act and Licensing Act seriously. They had investigated the disturbances, engaged qualified professionals to recalibrate the sound system, and invested considerably in noise insulation. The applicant added that the premises had been closed for several months to address concerns, protocols had been strengthened, door management and security had been improved, and there had been no nuisances related to patrons.

The applicant also claimed to communicate directly with residents and stated that they had previously been the subject of false complaints. They argued that without specific details about the noise disturbances, it was difficult to solve the problem, and the council should share more technical data. They stated:

without being given details about the noise disturbances that it was akin to being tasked to solve the problem blindfolded as pinpointing sound pathways was highly technical and stated that the council should share more technical data.

The applicant stated that they take their own acoustic readings and decibel recordings, and when nuisance had been reported directly, they had invited individuals to read the noise limiter. They expressed frustration that despite complying with the levels set on the noise limiter, they had been subjected to complaints and investigation.

In response to questions, the applicant confirmed the application was for a private hire birthday event, with the downstairs area being a restaurant and the upstairs reserved for the premises. They also stated that the incident relating to the 02:19 disturbance in May was due to a former staff member playing personal music through a Bluetooth speaker, which they acknowledged should not have happened.

The applicant stated that they gradually lower the bass and volume of the music towards closing time, specifically from 01:30 onwards, and that officers had observed this on one occasion without incident. They argued that out of 163 bookings to date, there had not been 163 complaints, indicating responsible management.

The applicant further stated that they had been given a warning that they had breached the abatement notice, and that they didn't consider it satisfactory to be rejected for the temporary event notice while they were appealing the fixed penalty notices and that they deserved an opportunity through the granting of the TEN to demonstrate that they took their responsibilities seriously.

The applicant offered to accept the existing conditions of the premises licence to be applied to the temporary event notice, reduce the hours requested to 3am, and highlighted their engagement with the community by distributing flyers, offering discounts to local residents, and engaging with passers-by.

Summing Up

The Noise Team reiterated their statutory responsibility to investigate noise complaints and stated that they were not always at liberty to share personal data due to the individual(s) not wishing to do so. They added that the responsibility for investigating repeated noise nuisances ultimately rested with the premises but that they were happy to meet with the applicants to discuss further.

The applicant stated that they fully accepted their responsibility to uphold the licensing objectives and respectfully requested that the temporary event notice was granted. They also requested that a collation or general direction from which the breach was occurring would be helpful to their efforts to address this.

Decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application for a temporary event notice and serve a counter notice.