Agenda item

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

The applicants addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the applicants.

The licensing sub-committee noted the two representations from the two supporters to the application, who were not in attendance at the hearing.

The licensing sub-committee further noted the representation from one objector to the application, who was not in attendance at the hearing.

The applicants were given up to five minutes for summing up.

The meeting adjourned at 10.31am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 10.40am and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made by DOTS PH&B Ltd for a premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asDorothy’s at the St George’s Tavern, 14 Coleman Road, London SE5 7TGis granted.  .

Hours

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to the relevant mandatory conditions, any conditions derived from the operation schedule highlighted in Section M of the application form and the conciliated conditions with the Metropolitan Police Service, trading standards and licensing as a responsible authority.

Reasons

This was an application made by DOTS PH&B Limited for a premises licence to be granted under the Licencing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Dorothy's at the St George's Tavern, 14 Coleman Road, London SE5 7TG.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicants who stated the application was for a pub which served both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages for the lesbian and sapphic community in South-East London.

Having conciliated with the responsible authorities resulting in a number of conditions being agreed.  The applicants had met with local residents at a recent street party, in addition to the local vicar and discussed how the premises could work with them to encourage the local community to utilise the venue. The applicants were hopeful that residents agreed with what the applicants were trying to achieve in the community and had addressed residents’ concerns when the premises when it was under previous management.

The applicants were conscious that there was a local primary school, St. George’s School, in the immediate vicinity and assurances had been given that the school wouldn’t be disturbed or disrupted by the premises.  The premises management plan detailed that no one would be permitted drinking and/or smoking outside, until17:00 hours which covered school hours and would ensure the school was not disturbed, which included school pick up. Prior to 17:00 hours smokers were permitted to smoke at the back of the premises in the pub’s garden which was private. 

The applicants were also mindful that as a queer venue, residents may be touchy, so the premises would not be an outwardly queer venue like those seen in Soho. The premises would have a tasteful environment.

A safeguarding plan had also been devised to ensure child safety within the premises, ensuring that there wouldn’t be anything outwardly concerning to children or parents.

As a queer establishment, members raised concern that the premises may receive objection, so asked from a promotion of public safety perspective, how they were prepared for potential issues if they were challenged on their right to exist or to trade and whether there were proper mechanisms to ensure that both staff and customers felt safe should anything arise.  It was explained the general ethos was a mix of education and enforcement. In the first instance it was hoped staff could address such issues educationally, encouraging people to be accepting, and ensure the issue didn’t escalate.  If the safety or security of anyone was felt compromised, then police would be immediately contacted.

It was also explained, on busier evenings SIA registered door supervisors would be on the door and would manage disruption. The Applicant was in the process of drafting a plan that would detail conflict issues and the triggers when police presence would be required.

It was noted that from the conciliated conditions with licensing as a responsible authority that in the event of a resident complaining, the applicants would provide a direct telephone number for the manager at the premises would always be publicly available the premises was open.

The applicants stated there was an open dialogue with the local vicar and governor of St George's School. They had also met with the neighbourhood residents’ committee, in addition, they were also now members of the community WhatsApp group.  As soon as the lease to the premises was signed and the licence granted, the Applicant would post an introductory message to residents and local businesses on the WhatsApp group.

The licensing sub-committee noted the three representations from the responsible authorities namely, Metropolitan Police Service, trading standards and the licensing authority had conciliated, with the applicants agreeing conditions.

The licensing sub-committee also noted the two representations from the two supporters to the application, who were not in attendance at the hearing.

The licensing sub-committee further noted the representation from one objector to the application, who was not in attendance at the hearing.

In considering this application, the licensing sub-committee noted the only outstanding representation was from the one objector whose representation raised concern of outdoor live and recorded music and the potential impact it would have in a quiet residential area for nearby residents. 

However, the sub-committee noted that the environmental protection team had not submitted an objection to the application, suggesting they had no concerns of potential public nuisance.  Furthermore, during the conciliation process, the applicants reduced the operating hours and withdrew all regulated entertainment.  The sub-committee were therefore satisfied that the premises did not pose a risk of causing a noise nuisance. It was also of the view with the suite of conditions on the premises licence, the licensing objectives would be promoted.

The members of the licensing sub-committee wished the applicants their very best with the venture for the future.

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 Sectors England and Wales (November 2025) and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

The appellant may appeal against any decision:

a.  To impose conditions on the licence; or

b.  To exclude a licensable activity or refuse to specify a person as premises supervisor.

Any person who made relevant representation in relation to the application who desires to contend that:

a.  The licence ought not to have been granted; or

b.  That on granting the licence, the Licencing authority ought not to have been having ought not to have imposed different or additional conditions to the licence or ought to have modified them in a different way.

may appeal against this decision.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates Court for the area in which the premises are situated.  Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the Magistrate's Court within the period of 21 days, beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the Licencing Authority of the decision appealed against.