The Royal Borough of Greenwich's Licensing Sub-Committee B convened to discuss a request from Mr Prakash Patel, also known as Tom, on behalf of The Ship Sports Bar Limited, to modify the premises licence for The Ship Public House at 205 Plumstead Common Road. The committee ultimately decided to refuse the request to vary the licence. The application sought to remove a condition preventing patrons from taking drinks outside and to extend the licensed area to include the forecourt, accommodating 45 customers until 21:00 daily.

The Ship Public House Licence Variation

The sub-committee was asked to consider an application made by Tom Patel on behalf of The Ship Sports Bar Limited to vary the premises licence for The Ship Public House. The applicant's business currently operates under a licence granted in January 2019 for on-premises alcohol sales, subject to conditions in Annex 2 consistent with the operating schedule. Condition 9 of the same schedule states patrons shall not be permitted to take 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 application sought:

• Removal of the existing condition 9 from Annex 2 of the premises licence, which states: Patrons shall not be permitted to take drinks or glass containers outside the premises. This includes any patron who temporarily leaves the premises to smoke.
• Extension of the existing Annex 4 approved licensing layout plan to include the external forecourt area at the front of the premises within the scope of the premises licence, to accommodate a capacity of 45 customers outside until 21:00 hours daily.

The council's licensing team manager, Steve Cox, provided an outline of the report, noting that the application had been advertised as required, and that the premises is within the Plumstead Common Road cumulative impact zone¹.

Duncan Craig, barrister for the applicant, argued that the application was prompted by the end of COVID-era relaxations on off-sales of alcohol, and that the premises had operated without issues in the external area for around five years. He also noted that the premises are situated underneath three residential flats, whose residents had not objected to the application. Mr Craig offered a reduction in the premises' capacity from 250 to 200 as part of the application.

Objections to the Application

Representations against the application were made by:

• Ishwak Ahmed from RBG Public Health, who requested a condition for the use of plastic drinkware in the forecourt area to mitigate the risk of harm.
• Lisa Lacey from RBG Community Protection, who raised concerns about noise and dispersal of patrons from the external area, potentially undermining the prevention of public nuisance.
• Ian Vinton and Marie Morrissey, local residents, who cited a history of disturbance from loud music and anti-social behaviour.

Public Health Concerns

Ishwak Ahmed from Public Health, highlighted concerns related to public safety, specifically requesting the use of plastic drinkware in the forecourt area. Ahmed cited data from the local alcohol harms dashboard, which demonstrated a range of area-specific data obtained from police, London ambulance service and NHS services, which includes a range of alcohol related offending ambulance responses to alcohol related incidents and alcohol related admissions. Ahmed stated that Public Health believed the best way to reduce the risk of glass related injuries or alcohol-fueled violence is for premises to use safer containers such as plastic or polycarbonate drinkware at times when trouble is more likely.

Councillor David Gardner, Chair of Audit and Risk Management Panel and Deputy Mayor, questioned the relationship between the glassware and the stats that Ahmed provided in terms of the higher than borough average alcohol dependence within the Plumstead Common Area. Ahmed confirmed that there was no relationship.

Community Protection Concerns

Lisa Lacey from RBG Community Protection, expressed concerns that allowing 45 people to drink outside from midday to 9pm could undermine the prevention of public nuisance, due to noise from amplified music and customers entering and leaving the premises. Lacey also raised concerns about the dispersal of patrons at 9pm, stating that no provisions appeared to be made for this process.

Victor Amoke, also from RBG Community Protection, supported Lacey's comments, recounting an incident where he attended the ship and witnessed excessive noise levels.

Local Resident Concerns

Ian Vinton, a local resident, was not present at the meeting, but his written representation was considered. Vinton raised concerns about noise and public nuisance, citing instances of loud music escaping from the premises and anti-social behaviour outside.

Applicant's Response

Mr Craig responded to the concerns raised, stating that the noise identified by Environmental Health related to amplified music, and that the application included a restriction on external speakers. He also argued that residents who live near pubs have to accept a level of interference.

In response to Councillor Gardner's question about the visit from the Community Protection Team, Mr Patel said that he was unaware that he did not have the outside drinking license. He said that as soon as he found out, the music was stopped, the doors were closed and the pub shut down.

Committee Decision

After hearing from all parties, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application to vary the premises licence.

The sub-committee stated that it 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, especially 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 sub-committee 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.

The sub-committee stated that 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.

Because of its decision to refuse the grant of the licence it was not necessary for the LSC to consider further additional conditions proposed by the Applicant or the responsible authority of the public health team.