Bromley Council’s Licensing Sub-Committee heard an application from Pierluigi’s Pasta Fresca at 86-90 Beckenham High Street for a new premises licence on August 12.
The application sought to extend the opening hours of the business and play recorded music.
The committee refused the application on Monday (August 18) as it believed the Italian eatery was clearly a public nuisance.
Pierluigi’s, which describes itself as a “family-run Italian restaurant with a strong community presence and history of compliance”, has confirmed it will be appealing the committee’s decision citing “legal misdirection, factual errors, and unfair reliance on hearsay”.
At last week’s application hearing, two local residents claimed the restaurant’s loud music regularly kept them awake on weekends, with one of them branding Pierluigi’s a “powerful magnet that draws in undesirable characters”.
According to the published decision notice, the committee thought the evidence given by these two men was “persuasive and detailed”.
In response, Pierluigi’s legal representative David Dadds argued: “A central issue involves two residents whose testimony about noise disturbance was treated as key evidence.
However, acoustic modelling shows they live outside the area of likely impact, making their claims of ‘booming disco music’ implausible.”
He was also critical of the weight the committee gave to the 26 noise complaints the restaurant had prompted since May 2024.
Mr Dadds said: “The appeal also criticises the committee’s reliance on anonymous, third-hand complaints without being called to give evidence.
“It claims this breaches statutory guidance requiring decisions to be evidence-based and proportionate, and the ability to challenge evidence given by anonymous complainers.”
During the hearing, Mr Dadds submitted that a noise limiter was in place at the restaurant and had been set at an appropriate level, as evidenced by a report from RBA Acoustics. However, the committee decided a noise limiter isn’t always a guarantee that an unacceptable level of sound wouldn’t emanate from the premises.
It also noted that the applicant themselves said they would turn the music up as the night went on as “a more dancing/club atmosphere” prevailed at the restaurant.
A recent incident of an alleged sexual assault was also discussed at the hearing. The committee witnessed video evidence, provided by police, which it felt demonstrated “a lack of responsible management on the part of the applicant and her colleagues” in relation to the June 22 incident.
The decision notice continues: “The committee was particularly troubled by body worn police footage which showed that, when the police arrived at the scene to investigate the matter, Ms [Sofia Figuera] Martin and her brother Marco, who are both involved in running the premises, both seemed to indicate that nothing had happened and/or that they were unaware of any incident.
“It was clear to the committee that they were likely to have been aware of the incident at this point, and so this reflected a failure on the applicant’s part to properly engage with the police and actively uphold their duty of care towards their customers.”
In regards to the June 22 incident, Mr Dadds pointed to the fact that the complainant had since withdrew the sexual assault allegation and no prosecution was being sought by the authorities.
He also called the police evidence “largely hearsay or second-hand”.
The committee also noted that it had previously identified concerns with the “cooperativeness and behaviour of the management” at Pierluigi’s during previous licensing processes.
It said the applicant had undertaken an “unusually combative and hostile approach” towards authorities such as the police and Bromley’s licensing team in its new application.
The decision states: “The applicant’s written evidence and its series of aggressive complaint letters, including multiple letters to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, reflect in these circumstances a very poor and uncooperative attitude towards the responsible authorities that does not indicate they can be trusted to manage their licence properly.”
Mr Dadds argued that Pierluigi’s “has demonstrated a clear ability to uphold licensing objectives” over the years.
The committee also wholly rejected Pierluigi’s claims that Bromley Council officers had embarked on a “campaign of surveillance and intimidation verging on harassment” due to officers allegedly visiting the restaurant on a weekly basis despite restaurant staff always being “very civil and very cooperative”.
In response, the committee said: “The council’s officers have, in the committee’s view and on the evidence, acted in good faith and have taken proportionate and appropriate steps to deal with valid noise nuisance complaints, among other issues.”
This forthcoming appeal against the refusal will be the latest chapter in the ongoing Pierluigi’s licensing saga. In March, Bromley Council’s public health nuisance team applied for a review of the restaurant’s premises licence due to the noise complaints.
The committee decided at the time there was “ample and sufficient evidence” that the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective had been undermined.
It imposed new licensing conditions including that no music can be played at the venue except for background music that must “not be above the level of normal conversation in a restaurant environment”.
This condition would likely harm the restaurant’s ‘vibe dining’ business model which involves customers visiting the restaurant on weekend evenings and enjoying the dining experience while listening to loud music provided by a DJ. These weekend events are supposedly the source of the many noise complaints submitted by neighbours.
As well as having to turn the music down, the conditions also dictated that Pierluigi’s CCTV system would have to cover the internal dining area and record audio and its premises licence would be suspended for two months.
Pierluigi’s appealed to Bromley Magistrates’ Court against this March decision, with the restaurant now embarking on two appeals against decisions made by Bromley’s Licensing Sub-Committee.
