Decision Maker: Licensing Sub-Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: November 10, 2025

Purpose:

Content: Licensing Act 2003 Notice of Decision   PREMISES The Drill Hotel Brentwood Road Romford RM2 5TD   APPLICANT Star Pubs Trading Limited   Details of requested licensable activities   This application to vary a premises licence is made by Star Pubs Trading Limited under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003.  The application was received by Havering’s Licensing Authority on 25th September 2025.     Details of the application   The application is to permit the following amendments to the licence:   •           To extend all licensable activities permitted internally to 00:00 Monday to Thursday and 01:00 Friday and Saturday. (NB These hours do not include the shed bar which will continue to operate under the existing permitted hours, i.e. Monday to Thursday 10:00 to 23:00, Friday and Saturday 10:00 to 00:00 and Sunday 12:00 to 22:30.)   •           To permit the licensable activities authorised by this licence to continue on New Year’s Eve until the end of permitted hours on New Year’s Day, i.e. thirty-nine hours from 10:00 on 31st December until 01:00 2nd January.   •           To increase the terminal hours the premises closes to the public following the above changes to Monday to Thursday 08:00 to 00:20 and Friday and Saturday 08:00 to 01:20.   •           To add the following condition to the licence:   Notices will be displayed at all exits reminding customers to leave the area quietly and respecting the needs of local residents.   Summary   There was one representation against this application from a neighbouring business.   There were no representations against this application from residents or responsible authorities.   Determination to vary a premises licence   Introduction   The Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee also heard from the Applicant’s representative, Mr Morris and the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), Ms Fitzgibbon.   Considerations   In coming to their decision, the Sub-Committee 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 were 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee  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 and 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee 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 are 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 environmental health had requested the 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, there was going to be noise. Given the time of dispersal would be 1.20 in the morning and this is a 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 Sub-Committee 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 Sub-Committee refuses the application to extend the operating hours.   Right of Appeal   Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.   On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may: 1.         Dismiss the appeal; or 2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or 3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and 4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.