Decision

DRILL HOTEL

 
Hearing held on
Monday 10th November 2025
 
Introduction
 
The subcommittee heard an application on
behalf of Star Pubs Trading Limited (SPTL) who are the Licence
Holders for the public house the Drill Hotel.
 
The Applicant was seeking to extend the
opening hours of the Drill from 11:00 p.m. to 12 midnight on
Mondays to Thursdays and 1:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. The
Applicant was also seeking an extension of time for the upcoming
festive season.
 
The subcommittee heard from three responsible
authorities, all of whom opposed the application for an extension
of time. The responsible authorities were:
 
1.         The
Licencing Authority
2.         the
Metropolitan Police
3.        
Environmental Health
 
All three Responsible Authorities objected to
the variation. They were of the view that extending the licencing
hours would undermine two of the licencing objectives namely,
preventing crime and disorder, and preventing public nuisance.
 
The subcommittee also heard from the
Applicant’s representative, Mr Morris and the Designated
Premises Supervisor (DPS), Ms Fitzgibbon.
 
Considerations
 
In coming to their decision, the subcommittee
considered all of the following:
 
1.        
Representations from the Responsible Authorities.
2.        
Representations from the Applicant and DPS.
3.         The
licencing pack.
4.         The
licensing objectives.
5.         The
section 182 guidance.
6.         the
London Borough of Havering’s statement of licensing policy
(LBH policy).
 
Having considered all of the above, the
subcommittee refused the application on the basis that granting an
extension of the opening hours would undermine the licencing
objectives of preventing crime and disorder and public nuisance as
set out in Section 4(2) of the Licencing Act 2003.
 
 
 
 
Representations
 
Below is a summary of the representations made
by the Responsible Authorities.
 
The Licensing Authority
 
The Licencing Authority were concerned that an
extension to the opening hours of the Drill would be operating
outside of the LBH policy as the premises are in a mixed-use area.
Concerns were also raised that the extension of drinking hours
would increase drunkenness and disorderly conduct, which could
result in crime and disorder and public nuisance. The Licensing
Authority accepted that their concerns were speculative and had not
provided any evidence.
 
The Licensing Authority pointed out the
Applicant had not provided any extensive steps to them in respect
of how they would operate if an extension of hours was granted,
such as the provision of door staff. The Licensing Authority
confirmed that they had not been provided with the public policy on
public nuisance and they concluded by stating that the Applicant
could have applied for a TENS notice which would demonstrate that
the Applicant can regularly operate under extended hours without
disturbing residents. In light of the lack of evidence from the
Applicant and the extension being sought being outside of the LBH
policy, there were concerns about public nuisance and crime and
disorder and given that there were no prior TENS events the
Licensing Authority objected to the application.
 
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
 
The MPS asserted that the Drill is in a
predominantly residential area with private dwellings and that the
other public houses in the area close at 11:00 pm Monday to
Thursday, 12 midnight Friday and Saturday and 10:30 pm on Sunday
which is consistent with the quiet character of the area.
 
Whilst the MPS accept that the Drill is quite
well run, they believe that an extension to the opening hours would
have an adverse effect on the local community and undermine the
licencing objectives. Additionally, the MPS pointed out that
extending the licencing hours, extended drinking time and therefore
levels of intoxication which could increase the risk of violent
crime as a result of drunkenness.
 
The MPS referred to an incident in 2022 which
involved an incident of serious violence and public disorder on
Christmas Day morning after the Drill had closed, which MPS
believed demonstrated the point about drunkenness and violence from
patrons exiting licenced premises that have been operating under
extended hours.
 
Furthermore, the MPS pointed out that the
Drill is not located in a late-night economy zone, it does not have
permanent door staff, there are no taxi ranks and it lacks
extensive CCTV coverage. They were of the view that the location is
not set up for Late night venues. The MPS were of the view that
extended hours will increase disturbances, foul language and noise
which will amount to a public nuisance.
 
The MPS opposed the extension but stated that
if the subcommittee where to grant the application that they impose
conditions of having permanent door staff and ID scans.
 
Environmental health
 
Environmental Health raised concerns about
public nuisance. They stated that irrespective of the good
management of the pub, there will be noise upon departure from the
premises and nothing has been offered up by the Applicant on how
they plan to alleviate that issue. Environmental Health appreciated
that there will be “please leave quietly” notices, but
indicated that such signs would be the minimum expected.
 
Environmental Health pointed out the Applicant
has not provided any details about the noise limiter,  or its public policy on public nuisance, despite a
request by e-mail from them, and there is no evidence that either
has been signed off by Environmental Health.
 
Environmental health stated that there had
been complaints in the past and video evidence had been provided,
however they accepted that the last complaint was 18 months
ago.
 
The environmental health opposed the
application on the above grounds.
 
The Applicant and DPS
 
The subcommittee heard from the
Applicant’s representative and DPS. The Applicant began by
giving background information in respect of the Drill. The
Applicant stated that the Drill was a community pub engaged in
carriage charity work in the community and had raised £20,000
in funds in one year for charitable causes. The Applicant also
stated that the DPS had invested £350,000. The Applicant
referred the subcommittee to the section 182 Guidance and referred
to paragraph 9.12 and accepted that the responsible authorities are
experts in their field and the main source of advice to the
subcommittee. The Applicant also referred to paragraph 9.43 of the
Guidance which states that the authorities determination should be
evidence based. The Applicant stated that there had been no
evidence that the pub as it is currently run is causing an issue
and that there was no evidence to refuse a variation.
The Applicant stated that the variation was
not intended to attract new customers, but to keep existing ones,
additionally they were not looking to change the style or policy or
concept of the pub.
 
In respect of addressing the concerns of the
Responsible Authorities the Applicant asserted the following:
 
•          
No residents have objected to the application.
•          
There have not been any complaints from the residents regarding
noise.
•          
The Responsible Authorities accept that the Drill is well run.
•          
They had revised their dispersal policy after the 2022 incident and
now have a robust dispersal policy
•          
They will risk assess the need for door staff on an ongoing
basis.
•          
They have upgraded the CCTV system and there are no blind
spots.
•          
The Drill will not allow people to enter the premises after 11:00
PM which is already a condition on the licence.
 
Decision
 
The subcommittee considered the aforementioned
representations and determined that to grant an extension of hours
would undermine the licencing objectives of preventing crime and
disorder in accordance with Section 4(2)(a) and the prevention of
public nuisance in accordance with section 4(2)(c) of the Licencing
Act 2003.
 
Prevention of crime and disorder
 
The Applicant asserted that there was no
evidence to show that there was an issue with running the pub and
there was no evidence provided to refuse the application. The
subcommittee disagrees with the latter assertion. The Metropolitan
Police Service provided a CRIS report which detailed serious
violence and public disorder in the early hours of Christmas Day
morning where people were injured and a number of people were
arrested. Those involved were believed to have been the dispersed
patrons from the Drill. The incident corroborates MPS’
concerns that extended drinking hours can lead to extended drinking
which can result in intoxication and result in crime and disorder
leading to violence.
 
The subcommittee 
are also cognisant of the fact that the MPS are the experts in the
field when it comes to the issue of promoting the licencing
objective of promoting the prevention of crime ad disorder and
therefore accept the advice that the MPS provided, which is that
location is not in a night time economy zone, as such the location
is not equipped to have late night venues and this is evidenced by
the fact that there are no taxi ranks in the vicinity and the area
lacks extensive CCTV. In respect of the taxi rank, it is pertinent
to the issue of dispersal. It is noted that in the 2022 incident,
patrons had not dispersed some 30 minutes after the Drill had
closed.
 
The subcommittee are of the view that these
factors undermine the licencing objective of preventing crime and
disorder.
 
In respect of evidence, the Licencing
Authority pointed out that the Applicant had not provided any
evidence to show how they would operate if an extension of time was
granted, such as door staff. The Applicant is unwilling to provide
permanent door staff on Friday and Saturday evenings and is
unwilling to implement staff ID which are the two measures the MPS
suggested and would have gone some way to alleviating the MPS
concerns.
 
The subcommittee is of the view that the
Applicant has not demonstrated how it will be able to promote the
licencing objectives if an extension was granted in light of the
dearth of information regarding the above and having considered the
representations from the responsible authorities this subcommittee
all of the view that granting the variation will undermine the
licencing objective of preventing crime and disorder.
 
Public Nuisance
 
Condition 18 of the licence required that a
Public Nuisance Policy be agreed between the premises licence
holder and/or the DPS and the environmental health officer with the
London Borough of Havering. The policy or any variations then may
be agreed between the premises licence holder, the designated
premises supervisor or the environmental health officer were to be
provided to the environmental health officer by the time of the
hearing. The subcommittee noted that the environmental health had
requested Public Nuisance Policy but the Applicant and/or DPS had
not provided it by the time of the hearing. The environmental
health officer had also requested details of the noise limiter, but
once again these details have not been provided and were not
available at the time of the hearing.
 
The subcommittee accepted the representation
made by Environmental Health in that regardless of how well the pub
was managed, that was going to be noise. Given the time off
dispersal would be 1.20 a.m. in the morning and this is sensitive
period as defined by paragraph 2.25 of the s182 Guidance, and given
that there was no taxi rank available in the vicinity, the
subcommittee were of the view that it is likely that those patrons
waiting for transport would make noise during the sensitive hours
and disturb residents and become a public  nuisance.
 
The Applicant and the DPS had stated that they
were not seeking to attract new customers with the licence
extension, but rather to keep the current clientele and indicated
that their customers were local residents, however upon questioning
by the committee the DPS had accepted that patrons from the pub had
travelled from Uxbridge. This once again raises concerns about the
lack of provision for late night dispersal.
 
Having considered the representations and
advice given, the subcommittee decided that if the variation was
granted, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance
would likely be undermined.
 
LBH Policy
 
In accordance with the s182 Guidance, the
subcommittee had regard to the LBH statement of licencing policy.
The subcommittee considered the key aims in accordance with the
policy which were protecting the public and local residents from
crime, anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance, which is akin to
promoting the licensing objectives; and recognising the important
role that pubs play in the community. It is a balancing act, and
the subcommittee have resolved it in favour of protecting the
residents from crime, disorder and nuisance, which aligns with the
licensing objectives.
 
The subcommittee considered paragraph 12 and
12.6 of the LBH policy in the context of promoting the licensing
objectives and do not believe that the applicant provided enough
information to the subcommittee in respect of:
 
-The adequacy of
the applicant’s proposals to prevent crime and disorder and
prevent public nuisance
-Whether customers
have access to public transport when arriving at or leaving the
premises
-The proximity of
the premises to other licensed premises in the vicinity and the
hours of operation of those other premises policies and proposals
for the orderly dispersal of customers
 
Conclusion
 
For all of the reasons set out in the
decision, the subcommittee refuses the application to extend the
operating hours.