Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The applicant for the review addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant for the review.

The licensing sub-committee then hard from other persons, namely local residents, who supported the premises. Members had no questions for the other persons.

The representatives for the premises then addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the representatives for the premises.

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 11.12am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 11.46am and the chair advised everyone present of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having considered an application made under s. 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 submitted by an other person for the review of the premises licence issued in respect of Prince Albert, 111 Bellenden Road, London SE15 4QY having had regard to all relevant representations has decided to take no further action.

Reasons

This was an application made by an other person for the review of the premises in respect of

Prince Albert, 111 Bellenden Road, London SE15 4QY.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who presented her report.  In the review application the applicant had referred the incident of 2 April 2026 to the police (CAD number 9205/02Apr26 refers). 

In view of this, and the fact that the police had not submitted a representation, the officer was asked whether there had been any contact from them.  The officer informed the sub-committee that inquiries had been made, and the police had confirmed the crime report had been closed due to the applicant not wishing to pursue the matter, which was accepted by the applicant.

It was also confirmed that although the applicant had stated in the review application that the designated premises supervisor (DPS) was required to be on the premises at all times.  The officer stated that this was not the case and that condition 101 provided “Every supply of alcohol under the Premises Licence must be made, or authorised by, a person who holds a personal licence”.  The night time economy team had inspected the premises on 10 April 2026 and found the premises to be fully compliant with the terms and conditions on the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who brought the review under the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety licensing objectives in that a direct threat of violence had been made by the manager which was an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. The applicant had also undermined the public safety licensing objective for doing the same.

The applicant gave the details of the incident.  The bar manager made the threat in response to a private conversation the applicant had with another customer, which the bar manager had considered racist. The bar manager threatened “If you’re racist, I’ll shoot your dog”.  This was then repeated to the applicant’s partner. The applicant later telephoned the pub and sought clarification, which the bar manager dismissed, stating the threat was a “joke” and then called the Applicant a “f****ng clown” and a “fruitcake”.

As a result, the applicant reported the incident to the police. The applicant confirmed he encouraged local residents not to drink at the Prince Albert due to the incident in a post he had made on the online forum Nextdoor.com.  The Applicant did not consider his comment as racist and if it had offended anyone, he apologised.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from other persons 1, 2, 4, 6 who supported the premises.  The other persons were all regular customers, and each spoke highly of the pub, stating it was well managed run community pub, that often ran charitable events raise money for good causes.  The applicant agreed with this.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the director of Town Centre Inns Limited who was the premises licence holder, in addition to the company secretary and Operations Manager and DPS.  The company operated twenty community pubs, six of which were located in Southwark and community was at the heart of the Company’s business model and ethos.  As part of the company’s recruitment process for all publicans, candidates were subject to a vetting procedure, including background checks and the verification of references. All the company’s pubs were equipped with fully maintained CCTV systems, which were monitored periodically remotely.  The company and each of the premises carried out their duties in accordance with the four licencing objectives.

The DPS stated they attended the premises at least three times a week and regularly visited the premises during both opening and closing hours to speak with the public and also staff regarding operational issues and training matters that may arise.  The DPS had also carried out an investigation about the incident, and it was accepted the comment made by the applicant was racist.  The bar manager confirmed that his response to the remark was actually “If you had a black dog, would you shoot him?”.

It was also explained the stress arising from the applicant’s complaint had a considerable impact on the bar manager’s well-being, who felt he had been unfairly vilified and subjected to harassment both immediately after leaving the premises and during the days and weeks following the allegations made when the applicant bombarded the pub with phone calls, once screaming down the phone, and then in the end he just put the phone down. 

Matters involving one’s pets was always an emotive and the perceived threat clearly caused an acute reaction from both the Applicant and his partner.  This was most unfortunate given the Applicant’s partner indicated a wish to return to the pub. 

On the balance of probabilities, the sub-committee was of the view that either one or both of the parties directly involved in the incident on 2 April had misheard or misunderstood what was said.

The options available to the sub-committee are:

i.  Revoke the licence. The revocation of any licence is the draconian of measures available to the sub-committee and is warranted in the most serious of cases. This was not one of these occasions and it would be inappropriate to revoke this licence.

ii.  Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence. The only licensable activity on could be excluded would be with the exclusion of the sale of alcohol or the late-night refreshment.  The sub-committee viewed that this incident did not relate to the late night-night refreshment, nor was it alcohol fuelled.  It was decided that the exclusion of any licensable activity was therefore not reasonable.

iii.  Remove the designated premises supervisor. Both the Applicant and the other persons stated during the hearing that the premises was well managed. Therefore, the sub-committee concluded that the DPS should not be removed.

iv.  Modify the conditions of the licence. The incident on 2 April 2026 did not demonstrate that any of the licensing objectives had been undermined that needed rectifying by a modification to the licence.

v.  Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months. The sub-committee was of the view nothing would be gained by the licence being suspended, apart from denying regular customers being able to socialise in their local pub.

vi.  Do nothing. The Licensing Sub-Committee unanimously concluded that the review does not require it to take any further steps appropriate to promoting the licensing objectives.

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, its equality duties and four licensing objectives and the National Licensing Policy Framework for the hospitality and leisure sectorsEngland and Wales (November 2025)and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Following the hearing the chair of the licensing sub-committee urged the parties to attempt to resolves the issues between them.  To this the applicant informed the sub-committee that he had apologised to the premises, and the parties had shaken hands.

Appeal rights

This decision is open to appeal by either:

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The premises licence holder

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application.

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.

This decision does not have effect until either:

a)  The end of the period for appealing against this decision; or

b)  In the event of any notice of appeal being given, until the appeal is disposed of.