Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The officer from the Metropolitan Police Service addressed the sub-committee.  Member had questions for the police officer.

There were no representatives from the premises present.

The meeting then adjourned at 10.12am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 10.24am and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That as an interim step to promote the licensing objectives, pending the determination of the review application in respect of the premises known as The Ship Aground Public House, 33 Wolseley Street, London SE1 2BP at the full hearing, to be held on Tuesday 4 August 2026, the licence be suspended

Reasons

This was an application in respect of The Ship Aground Public House, 33 Ship Aground, Wolseley Street, London SE1 2BP to consider whether interim steps should be imposed, pending the determination of the full review application on 4 August 2026.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer.

He outlined the nature of the application explaining, the Metropolitan Police Service were requesting the suspension of the premises licence as an interim step. He stated, the proposed suspension would only remain in effect pending the full summary review hearing which is scheduled for 4 August 2026.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service

The officer explained that the police had applied for a summary review following the execution of a warrant at the premises and that he was limited in the detail he could provide because there was an ongoing criminal investigation.

He stated, the police executed a warrant on 8 July 2026, officers attending the premises were informed that a firearm had been recovered within the premises, together with a quantity of Class A drugs and a quantity of cash.

The warrant had been applied for as a result of intelligence linking the premises to the use of firearms, the storage of firearms and involvement in serious crime and disorder, including the possession of controlled drugs.

He explained, repeated efforts had been made by the investigating team, the licensing team and Stonegate as landlord to locate the premises licence holder and DPS (designated premises supervisor). He stated that all attempts had been unsuccessful and that nobody had been able to contact or locate the premises licence holder or DPS. His evidence was, at the time of this hearing, there was effectively nobody exercising control over the premises.

The officer submitted that the circumstances clearly amounted to serious crime and disorder. He opined that the premises were either directly involved in serious crime and disorder or were facilitating such activity. In his view, this significantly undermined the licensing objectives.

The police therefore requested that the licence be suspended as an interim step pending the full review hearing. He submitted that suspension was necessary because of the seriousness of the matters identified and because further crime and disorder could occur if the premises continued to operate whilst the investigation remained ongoing.

In answer to the sub-committee’s questions the officer stated, the police, licensing team and the landlord have been unable to locate the DPS or licence holder. He confirmed that the individual arrested was not the DPS but that individual had significant links to the premises licence holder and DPS.

As neither the licence premises holder, DPS or their representatives submitted written representations or attended the meeting, the licensing sub-committee retired to consider the evidence before it.

The licensing sub-committee noted:

1.  A firearm had been recovered from within the licensed premises.

2.  Class A drugs had been recovered from within the premises.

3.  Police intelligence linked the premises to the use and storage of firearms and, involvement in serious crime and disorder.

4.  Cash had been recovered during the execution of the warrant.

5.  The premises licence holder and DPS could not be located despite attempts by the police, licensing officers and the landlord so that there was effectively nobody exercising control over the premises at the time of the hearing.

6.  The premises were not represented at the hearing and no explanation, mitigation or alternative proposal was presented to address the police concerns.

7.  The police contended that the premises were either involved in, or facilitating, serious crime and disorder and that immediate action was necessary pending the full review hearing.

The licensing sub-committee was aware that it was required only to determine whether interim steps were appropriate until the full review hearing.

The licensing sub-committee unanimously agreed that if the premises were permitted to remain open, there is a risk of further crime and disorder and a potential risk to the public

On the evidence presented, suspension was the most effective measure to immediately promote the licensing objectives.

It was the view of the licensing sub-committee that the suspension of the premises licence was necessary and proportionate as an interim step to promote the licensing objectives, pending the determination of the review.

Appeal rights

There is no right of appeal to a Magistrates’ Court against the licensing authority’s decision at this stage.

The premises licence holder may make representation against any interim steps imposed and a hearing to consider the representation will be held within 48 hours of receipt of the representation.  The holder of the premises licence may only make further representations if there has been a material change in circumstances since the authority made its determination.

Any representation should be in writing and cannot be received outside of normal office hours.