Content

In reaching its decision, the
Licensing Sub-Committee (“LSC”) considered the
Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act
2003, the Regulations made thereunder, and the Guidance issued by
the Secretary of State under S.182 of that Act. In discharging its
functions, the LSC did so with a view to promoting the licensing
objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children
from harm.
 
Having considered all written
representations, evidence and oral submissions including from the
Applicant’s legal representative and the proposal of
additional conditions, a written noise management plan and
dispersal policy by the Applicant by email on 15 September 2025 and
the Greenwich Police Licensing Team formally indicating that they
had no representations to make, the LSC resolved to refuse the
grant a variation of the premises licence for the sale and supply
of alcohol for consumption on the premises.
 
Preliminary Matter
As a preliminary matter for the
information of the parties, Councillor David Gardner a member of
the LSC raised at the beginning of the open meeting that he had
formerly made a written and oral representation in opposition to
the Applicant business in the issue of its 2019 licence, he noted
that he no longer represented the ward, and that the representation
in 2019 was on a distinct issue of the opening hours of the
premises an had been withdrawn on conciliation of the conditions in
the licence. All parties were asked to make submissions on whether
the circumstances amounted to a conflict of interest and if so
whether Councillor Gardner should recuse himself. The Applicant,
through its legal representative asked for time to take
instructions and consider the point. 10 minutes later the
Applicant’s legal representative confirmed that no objections
were taken to Councillor Gardner’s participation in the
hearing and decision.
 
Basis
of Decision
The licensing sub-committee was
requested to consider the application made by Tom Patel on behalf
of The Ship Sports Bar Limited the registered operator of The Ship
Public House. The Applicant’s business currently operates
under a licence granted in January 2019 for on-premises alcohol
sales subject to the conditions in Annex 2 consistent with the
operating schedule. Condition 9 of the same schedule states patrons
shall not be permitted to rake drinks or glass containers outside
the premises and Annex 4 of the licence contains a plan of the
licensable area of the premises excluding the forecourt of the
premises from the licensed area.
 
The Panel heard that the
business had used the forecourt for several years pursuant to the
Business and Planning Act 2020 which permitted the relaxation of
off sales of alcohol as a consequence of the Covid pandemic. The
repeal of the relevant sections of that Act ended permission for
off licence consumption which the Applicant was notified of
following a visit of Community Protection Officers in 2025 during
which members of the public were seen consuming alcohol in the
forecourt contrary to the licence provisions. The LSC heard from
the Applicant’s representative that the notification led to
the Applicant’s request for a variation.
 
In those circumstances, the LSC
records that it has not considered that the occasion was a breach
of condition 9 of the current licence as a factor when reaching its
decision. The Applicant has done the right thing when notified of
the changing application of the statutory regime and ceased using
the forecourt whilst having made this application for variation of
the premises licence. The LSC wants to make clear that it has made
its decision solely on the basis of reasons given below.
 
On behalf of the Applicant, its
legal representative submitted that the Applicant had owned and
operated the business for 17 years across two licences during which
time there had been no reviews because of the positive track record
of the applicant and his management of the business within the
confines of the licensing regime. The Applicant invited the LSC to
find the positive track record included operation of the exterior
forecourt for approximately 4 years during the de-restriction of
off-licence sales.
 
The Applicant acknowledged that
the premises was located within the Herbert Road/Plumstead Common
Cumulative Impact Zone (“CIZ”) and that it was for the
Applicant to demonstrate why the variation would not add to the
cumulative impact experienced. It submitted its record of
operations created a positive case for the amendment not materially
adding to the cumulative impact of the area. The representative
suggested records submitted of noise complaints, the most recent of
which were in July 2025, were not detailed and are unclear as to
the causation of any noise complaint. He submitted the Panel should
not consider the complaints as clear evidence of the likelihood,
especially when being few in number when considering the setting of
the pub which was a residential area. The legal representative also
disclosed that the Applicant – Tom Patel – was also the
owner and landlord of three residential flats above the pub and
that the lack of representations from these residents reflected the
well-managed nature of the pub forecourt and its general compliance
with the objectives of the CIZ.
 
It was submitted that the
licence was relatively heavily conditioned for a premises of the
size and nature, and that the new proposed additional conditions
put before the panel and the additional written policies amounted
to an even more thorough framework to ensure compliance.
 
The Applicant also put forward
a reduction in overall capacity to the venue of 200 and noted that
the forecourt area also fell under this limit so that the number of
people involved could realistically and practically be
managed.
 
The Applicant Tom Patel gave
brief evidence in support of the submissions of his representative
in which he said that the forecourt would be managed by a member of
staff appointed at the start of each shift, he suggested the
supervision would amount to a routine and relatively informal task
that could be done when – for example –  clearing up the venue’s empty
glasses.
 
The LSC also heard submissions
from the Public Health Team and the Community Protection Team as
Responsible Authorities. The Public Health Team representative
noted evidence taken from the Alcohol Harm Dashboard that showed
the area of the Ship Inn experienced higher than average levels of
alcohol-related hospital admissions and alcohol-specific mortality
for the borough. A further concern of the public health team was
the risk glass containers posed for violence outside. The Community
Protection Team had concerns about the number suggested to be
permitted outside and submitted that it was possible for 45 people
to be outside drinking from 12 midday until 9pm.
 
The dispersals policy was
lacking in detail and not sufficient to address the concern a high
number of individuals potentially posed.
 
In addition, the LSC had
relevant written representations from local residents discussing
disruption due to noise when doors were left open at the business
and other examples of public nuisance or disorder close to the
forecourt area. It was not suggested these were anything other than
relevant representations by local residents and the LSC considered
them on that basis.
 
The LSC has considered all of
the submissions and evidence in detail in order to come to a
decision based on the detailed evidence before it. It has made sure
its decision considers the circumstances experienced by the
business and surrounding residents at present and notes that the
LSC is required to provide a necessary balance between providing a
platform where responsible business operators may contribute
towards a thriving business and late-night economy whilst ensuring
the quality of life of residents and resident
businesses.
 
Under the Statement of
Licensing Policy for the Borough the LSC was required to refuse
applications for a variation unless an application can demonstrate
why the grant or variation involved will not add to the cumulative
impact. This places the burden on the Applicant to demonstrate that
a cumulative impact contrary to the licensing objectives would not
take place.
 
The LSC did not accept the
Applicant’s submission that an absence of representations
from residents living on the site could be considered positive
evidence of a lack of disruption. A lack of representations did not
create positive proof of good conduct and compliance, something
more was required. This was especially so where the residents were
the tenants of the Applicant directly and so may be dissuaded from
making representations for wholly understandable reasons relating
to the security of their tenancies.
 
The evidence before the LSC
indicated that there had in June 2025 been an issue with noise
complaints where patrons in the forecourt area had forced the door
open to allow the sounds within the business to reach the
forecourt. The representation from residents suggested that this
had happened on other occasions and suggested a pattern of conduct
by the patrons at the premises. The LSC did not find the
submissions of the applicant’s legal representative
persuasive in countering a suggestion that noise pollution from the
property was already an issue on occasions. It accepted the
representation that business and residents live alongside one
another and that some disruption from business was routine in every
day life especially before 23:00 as a point marking the beginning
of the nighttime economy. For the reasons given below the LSC was
concerned that an increased regular use of the forecourt area would
increase the instances of public nuisance within the
CIZ.
 
The LSC noted the noise
complaints occurred despite the condition in the current licence
that all doors and windows are to be kept closed during regulated
entertainment. This amounted to a breach of the operating schedule
and undermined the confidence the LSC could have in the Applicant
in his ability to manage and control noise.
 
A further issue was the
inherent traffic of persons entering and exiting the premises which
would create opening of the venue’s doors. If indeed 45
people were to be permitted outside in the forecourt there were
likely to be regular trips inside for various reasons, as well as
trips outside for those within the venue with a proposed capacity
of 200. The LSC concluded over the course of an average evening
this was likely to amount to the doors being open for a sustained
period. In consequence, the sounds within the property were likely
to create additional nuisance or disruption to residents and local
businesses.
 
The LSC looked at the proposed
measures to mitigate the likelihood of noise nuisance occurring.
The Applicant’s noise management plan did not address the
noise nuisance of traffic between the inside and outside of the
premises. The absence of external speakers in the forecourt and of
regular monitoring of noise levels would not address the inherent
leakage of sound that would occur with the more regular and
encouraged use of the forecourt area. Likewise, the introduction as
a condition of the licence of an enforced reduction of numbers
permitted in the courtyard that was also the main entrance and exit
for the property would be difficult to manage without a dedicated
member of staff – something the legal representative for the
applicant reminded the LSC was not a possibility for a small
business.
 
RBG’s Statement of
Licensing Policy contains direct reference to noise nuisance at
paragraph 4.30. It identifies several sources of noise nuisance and
includes within them entertainment noise escaping from premises and
the general noise of people arriving and leaving. Although the
paragraph is primarily focussed on the exit and dispersal of
customers late at night when the sounds would be
“particularly intrusive”, the Applicant premises is
located in a residential area with many surrounding households and
therefore the LSC considers that the paragraph relevant at any time
of day in the context of the venue. The paragraph lists noise
mitigation steps that can be adopted: One consideration is the
installation of acoustic lobbies to all entrances and exits. In
practice such a device would neutralise the noise of entry and
exits and where a sustained and constant stream of individuals
would be using the forecourt it is the only realistic means of
preventing exit of sound from within the venue under an amended
licence.
 
However, the LSC are aware that
no acoustic lobbies are installed in the Applicant’s
business. It cannot require the installation of the lobbies as a
proportionate and workable condition to the licence for a small
business. Consequently, in the absence of the methods of mitigation
the risk a variation of the licence to permit the consumption of
alcohol to the external space would increase the public nuisance
due to sound.
Because of its decision to
refuse the grant of the licence it is not necessary for the LSC to
consider further additional conditions proposed by the Applicant or
the responsible authority of the public health team.
 
Any party aggrieved by this
decision may appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21
days.