The eatery has also been criticised for sending “intimidating” cease and desist letters to residents who made representations against it.
Pierluigi’s in Beckenham High Street has been attempting to secure a new licence from Bromley Council ever since the authority demanded the venue turn down the volume of its music following multiple noise complaints.
The family-run Italian restaurant has continued to fight the March decision, claiming music is essential for its “vibe dining” business model which involves customers listening to a DJ on weekend evenings while enjoying their meal.
Pierluigi’s has submitted two new licence applications since then. The first was refused in August, and the second was refused last week.
Both times Bromley Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee came to the conclusion that the restaurant causes a public nuisance.
The committee noted that this second refusal had the “crucial context” of the March review hearing and the August application refusal, explaining that much of the evidence and the argument of both sides remained the same.
Although the committee did take on board the fact that Pierluigi’s had made some efforts to alleviate noise concerns, such as intentions to install acoustic shutters, it still felt the restaurant causes “considerable and unacceptable noise impacts”.
It said: “The simple reality is that the applicant’s ‘vibe-dining’ or ‘party dinner’ business model, which combines considerable elements of club style features like dancing, DJs, and loud recorded and live music late into the night, is inappropriate for a restaurant in a largely residential area. It lends itself to noise nuisance and harmful amenity impacts.”
The committee also rejected Pierluigi’s argument that neighbours making representations against it at previous licensing hearings were being dishonest, calling the witnesses “credible and fair”.
The restaurant previously chose to send cease and desist letters to residents it felt had misled the committee and said it would be potentially seeking compensation from them if they repeated the allegations.
The committee said: “Again, the committee finds it unrealistic residents would be confused about where the noise has been ongoing for several years now, given the resident witnesses have personally walked near the premises and are confident it is the source of the noise.
“The committee noted in particular that sleep deprivation is extremely damaging to the quality of life of residents and particularly to children.”
In terms of the cease and desist letters, the committee was disappointed at Pierluigi’s continued “combative” approach to dealing with the licensing process.
It said: “This is an unusual and unfortunate step which would inevitably have the effect of discouraging members of the public from expressing their concerns at a public meeting.
“It is difficult for the committee to reach any other conclusion than that these letters were sent for the purposes of intimidating the residents from giving evidence at further appeals, whether before the council or before the courts.”
The committee also felt the restaurant had attempted to intimidate responsible licensing authorities, such as the police, from “fairly and freely scrutinising the premises”.
Pierluigi’s had raised the fact that a police officer it had dealt with had a complaint against them, but police records showed the complaint was dismissed and no appeal against this decision had been made, despite the claims of Pierluigi’s legal representative David Dadds.
Pierluigi’s was again criticised for its reaction to an incident on June 22, when a customer made a complaint of penetrative sexual assault which has since been withdrawn.
The committee viewed police bodycam footage of the events on the night in question, and found they demonstrated “a lack of responsible management” on the part of the owners.
The committee commented: “It was clear in the committee’s view that the management failed to assist the police officer in investigating this serious crime and made it considerably harder for the officer to interview the alleged victim alone.”
Bromley Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee refused the licence application due to the noise nuisance, noting that it held the view that “the applicant and his management team have shown a lack of regard for the rigours of the licensing regime, and indeed have exhibited hostility and uncooperativeness in relation to the responsible authorities”.
Pierluigi’s has been contacted for comment.
March 2025
Bromley Council’s public health nuisance team applies for a review of Pierluigi’s premises licence due to noise complaints made by neighbours.
The council imposes extra conditions following this review, demanding the restaurant turns down its music and installs CCTV.
Pierluigi’s appeals the decision to Bromley Magistrates’ Court. It continues to trade as before the licence review until the appeal is heard in court.
May 2025
Pierluigi’s makes a new premises licence application, seeking an extension to its opening hours and introducing the licensable activity of playing recorded music at the venue, something Pierluigi’s did not have on its licence previously.
June 22, 2025
Police visit Pierluigi’s in the early hours in response to an alleged sexual assault.
The premises licence application was set to be heard by the council’s Licensing Sub-Committee the following day, but the hearing is postponed to August following the incident.
August 2025
Bromley Council refuses the application, branding the restaurant a public nuisance and finding that its music disturbs neighbours on weekends.
The management is also criticised for its response to the June 22 incident. Pierluigi’s again chooses to appeal the council’s decision, claiming residents live too far away to be affected by the noise.
The restaurant submits a second premises licence application the day after the first one is refused and sends cease and desist letters to residents who made representations against it.
October 20, 2025
Pierluigi’s second premises licence application is refused.
Bromley Council again brands it a public nuisance due to noise, continues its criticism of management in response to the June 22 incident, and condemns the cease and desist letters.
