Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 16, 2025

Purpose:

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the ward, and that the representation in 2019 was on a distinct issue of the opening hours of the premises an had been withdrawn on conciliation of the conditions in the licence.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.