Agenda item

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

 

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

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the other persons objecting to the application. Members had questions for the other persons.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.35am for a comfort break.  The meeting then reconvened at 11.40am.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.51am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 12.14pm and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Pembroke College Settlement for a premises licence under Section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known asWalworth Living Room, All Saints Hall, Surrey Square, London SE17 2JU is granted.

 

Hours

 

The sale by retail of alcohol (on sales only):	·  Sunday to Wednesday from 11:30 to 21:00 ·  Thursday to Saturday from 11:30 to 22:00
Opening hours:	·  Sunday to Wednesday from 09:00 to 22:00 ·  Thursday to Saturday from 09:00 to 23:00.

 

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, conditions agreed with the Metropolitan Police Service, licensing as a responsible authority the environmental protection team and the following condition:

 

i.  That there will be no playing amplified music permitted in the outside courtyard at anytime.

 

Reasons

 

This was an application made by Pembroke College Settlement for a premises licence in respect of the premises known asWalworth Living Room, All Saints Hall, Surrey Square, London SE17 2JU.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from the Executive Director of Pembroke House, the operating name for the of the charity Pembroke College Settlement in addition to the Facilities Manager and proposed Designated Premises Supervisor.

 

It was explained that the venue Walworth Living Room was located in All Saints Hall on Surrey Square.

 

They advised that the aim of the Living Room was to provide a space for the diverse communities of Walworth to come together in an area where lots of spaces for people to gather and to build connections have been lost.  The aim of Pembroke House, as a neighbourhood organisation that had been in Walworth for over 140-years, was to provide opportunities for residents to meet one another, to build relationships and to strengthen the neighbourhood and community bonds. The applicant was governed by its charitable objectives. 

 

It had opened in 2018 as an extension of the charity’s operations. Most of the operations were carried out in their main building, in Pembroke House on Tatum Street. As that space was taken up with activities, they identified the Living Room as another site, took a lease of All Saints Hall, which was formerly the church hall on Surrey Square Terrace.

 

Since 2018, the Living Room site developed and evolved a regular programme of community events and activities, with a programme based on interest from local community members.  There was currently a four-day a week drop-in programme funded by the National Lottery Reaching Communities programme and the Esme Fairburn programme. 

 

Many of the residents who utilise the Living Room came from more vulnerable members of the community.  The Living Room provided space for and safe sanctuary for people who need this type of community space. A range of statutory services, health provision and council meetings also took place at the Living Room.

 

The venue had a programme of community activities, providing a crucial space for people to come together. Staff undertook regular community engagement and door knocking to try and engage with local networks meeting residents and try and extend the programme out onto the streets.

 

Many residents comment that the Living Room sounded good but were unable to access the programme in its existing hours due to work etc. By way of response, the applicant had trialled a programme of evening or weekend activities, such as supper clubs, drop in music nights and on Saturday, they launched a Farmers Market.

 

The applicant wanted to build on that momentum, with some of the activities offered being permitted to supply alcohol.  A bring your own bottle of alcohol was previously allowed and governed under the charity’s policies and procedures. The offer of alcohol would allow the applicant to serve and control alcohol at those events, as part of another opportunity to bring people together and extend a supper club, with another element.

 

It would be part of an experimental programme, based on feedback from residents and based on interest. It would give the flexibility in testing a small and limited number of those types of events.

 

In advance of the licensing sub-committee hearing, the applicant wrote to everyone in the local area, setting out its intentions and activities, advising that a small number of limited events would then be available while the programme was tested. The applicant stated there was no intention to operate a seven day a week licence as this would be incongruent with their charitable objectives. 

 

A licence was sought for certain evening activities on Thursday, Fridays and maybe Saturdays. A seven days a week licence was sought because the Living Room hired rooms for conferences, public events etc. and alcohol could be offered as part of the applicant’s catering. Based on demand, the Living Room operated approximately six conferences each year.  Drop-ins at the Living Room operated between three and a half to four days a week due to the limitations of funding and capacity as a team, so licensed events would be strictly limited.

Bring your own (BYO) alcohol was permitted only for specific events, each event being risk assessed.  The applicant did not offer the Living Room for private parties, primarily because the space is predominantly for community/public sector or meeting use. Private parties could not be properly risk assessed. 

 

By offering the sale of alcohol as opposed to BYO, the applicant would be able to make a small income that would support other charitable objectives of the organisation. It would also place the applicant in control under the licensing regime, bringing a raft of licencing conditions to comply with.

 

Under a premises licence the applicant would be subject to stringent controls from local authority, police and environmental protection team measures. The residents’ concerns of noise would be more likely under a BYO that under a license, but added to that, the applicant would have less controllable measures in terms of the consumption or the use of alcohol on the premises.

The applicant accepted that it did not have a smokers’ policy.  Currently, there was no smoking space available and whilst the applicant would prefer to keep this, they accepted they still remain a number of individuals that smoked/vaped. The Applicant stated they would review how smokers could be managed once a licence was granted.  The courtyard was not a massive space, but they intended on creating a separate area for smokers within it.
The licensing sub-committee heard a local resident who represented other persons A and C who had lived in Surrey Square for approximately 30 years. Surrey Square was quiet, and almost entirely a residential street.

The resident supported and valued the work of the Walworth Living Room but was of the view that the licence application exceeded what was set out in the applicant’s letter to residents in June 2026. The applicant had applied to effectively open a venue for hire, serving food and alcohol seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, using the large courtyard as an integral part of their operation. The application included the right to host up to two large events per week. This would disturb those residents who worked from home. The residents’ bedrooms faced directly onto the courtyard and the noise of people in the courtyard drinking and eating would have a material impact on the quality of the residents’ lives, regardless of the mitigations in place

 

Other person A was over 80 years of age and usually went to bed at 21:00 hours. Sleeping would be impossible until much later. The resident mentioned that in May 2026 Walworth Living Room hosted an event that was out of control, causing a serious disturbance. The applicant had failed to explain their admissions and lettings policy and/or whether would accept people off the street. If the Living Room were to gain a reputation, challenging people to keep quiet and asking people to move on (on the street) would not be realistic.

The resident found it difficult to understand the legal basis on which the licencing officer withdrew the environmental protection team’s (EPT) objections.  The agreed conditions were vague, ill-defined and lacking in measurable parameters as to be unenforceable, which was a key factor in the granting of a license. The application had caused a huge amount of anxiety to residents with an operation anticipated that would potentially destroy the quiet and calm of the area. It was explained by the licensing officer that the EPT had conciliated with the applicant and it would be unlawful to not accept that conciliation.

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person B who also opposed the premises licence application based on the prevention of crime and disorder and also prevention of public nuisance licensing objectives. It was explained that local residents had been misled by the applicant. In a flyer, the applicant put through doors, they were “Applying for an events and activities licence for the
building, to serve our cause during limited evening and weekend hours. Once the application is submitted, then you will be contacted by the council”. This was not true.

 

The council did not contact residents once the application was submitted, resulting in many residents missing the consultation deadline to submit representations. The resident was advised that unlike the planning regime, under the Licensing Act 2003, the council was not under a duty to notify residents of a licensing application.

 

The applicant was also not candid about its desire to serve drinks and allow the congregation of people in the courtyard, which was raised by the environmental protection team (EPT). The applicant had very recently, installed a specially adapted shipping container with a serving hatch to serve drinks.  It was suggested that this was an open-air bar, accessible from the street and directly opposite residents.

 

The applicant was unable to articulate in a clear and transparent fashion how they intend to use the proposed premises licence. No clear indication of the numbers, whether all events would be ticketed or whether they would allow customers from the street to enter.

 

The facilities manager, wrote to the council with watered down the conditions suggested by EPT, and made the point that, the premises intended to host community supper clubs, curated dining experiences and other structured social events where the courtyard forms an integral part of the overall event, rather than functioning as an outdoor drinking area. However, it was not clear what this means. The courtyard would be used as part of events therefore, the EPT's concerns of likely breakout of noise remain.

The applicant had also failed to inform the council of several serious complaints about noise and nuances before the application was made. At a virtual meeting on 11 September 2026, this was put to the applicant. The response given was local pubs were empty, so demand would likely be low in any event. The applicant demonstrated no real effort to address the potential for public nuisance.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person D who echoed the issues raised by their fellow residents who made submissions at the sub-committee hearing.

In considering this application the licensing sub-committee was conscious that the Walworth Living Room was a space where the applicant’s aims under their charitable objectives, was to build as a community venue that works for the diversity of all with and that including its immediate neighbours which they have always attempted to be a good neighbour to.

 

Since 2018 there had been three instances the applicant was aware of concerns raised by residents regarding noise, none of which were alcohol related. Private parties do not take place at the premises. On the occasions that residents had raised concern, the applicant responded quickly.

 

The number of complaints versus the number of activities that had operated demonstrated robust procedures were already in place.  During the course of the hearing, the applicant agreed that amplified music would only be played inside the premises to ensure it doesn't cause any noise disturbance

 

The sub-committee were informed that the closest neighbour, was the warden of Pembroke House, who was also the vicar of St. Christopher's Church.  The vicar had a governing role in Pembroke House, so the applicant would be made aware of disturbances. It should act as reassurance to residents that the vicar had held this position in that the well-being of the church’s parishioners was paramount.

 

 

However,  the other persons are also reminded that should residents have serious concerns of the management of the event they have a right to call the premises licence in for a review when ultimately, the licensing sub-committee could revoke the premises licence.

 

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 applicant may appeal against any decision:

 

a.  To impose conditions on the licence

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

 

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

 

a.  That the licence ought not to have been granted; or

b.  That, on granting the licence, the licensing authority 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 the 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 Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.