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 meeting adjourned at 1.59pm for the sub-committee to take legal advice regarding the outside area.

 

The meeting then reconvened at 2.12pm.

 

The other persons objecting the application addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the other persons.

 

The licensing sub-committee noted the written representations of the other persons, who were not present at the meeting.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.51pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 3.31pm and the chair advised everyone present of the sub-committee’s decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application made by Chapter 72 Ltd to vary a premises licence to Chapter 72, Ground Floor, 72 Bermondsey Street, London SE1 3UD be granted (in part).

 

Conditions

 

i.  That condition 344 be varied to “The accommodation limit for the outside of the premises be limited to a maximum of 8 patrons who must be seated”.

 

ii.  That the area immediately outside the premises shall be monitored to ensure that any litter generated by the premises and/or its customers is regularly cleared.

 

iii.  That a direct telephone number for the management of the premises shall be provided for the residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons

 

This was an application to vary the premises licence in respect of Chapter 72, 72 Bermondsey Street, London SE1 3UD.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the applicant who explained that they had held the premises for approximately 10 years.  Chapter 72 was not simply a business that operated within the area. It was part of the local community, serving local residents and working alongside other local businesses and played a positive role in contributing to the Bermondsey Street community. It was accepted that as a local business, there was a responsibility to operate considerately and to maintain good relationships with all its neighbours.  They were always willing to listen, engage constructively, and take reasonable steps to resolve any genuine issues.

The applicant spoke of the community work they had operated, such as their Christmas Campaign “Hot Drinks, Mince Pies and Warm Smiles” which involved going out into the community and delivering coffee and mince pies to those who are elderly, alone, vulnerable or simply away from their families.

They advised that they had also won Time Out's most loved local coffee shop in SE1 and Borough, an award based on local communities voting for their favourite place.

 

Concerning the outdoor seating, the existing pavement licence allowed for two tables and four chairs outside where the consumption of alcohol was permitted. 

The applicant applied to vary the pavement licence which was granted in principle around May 2026.  The applicant believed this allowed them to serve alcohol there.

 

On 30 June the Highways Licencing and Enforcement Manager informed the Applicant that it would be necessary to vary the premises license to allow them to do so. Signs on the two additional tables stated no alcohol could be consumed there and the two tables were brought into the shop at night to avoid any confusion.  The applicant provided an email from the Highways Licensing Team confirming the same.

The applicant also addressed the concerns regarding noise. They complied with the same rules regarding noise like others on the street. The tables were brought indoors by 22:00 hours and signs erected requesting guests to respect the neighbours and leave quietly.  Staff from the premises were also on hand to monitor the outside area and ensure guests were considerate of their neighbours.

 

Turning to the Bermondsey Street Runners, they were not affiliated to Chapter 72. Initially, the runners asked if they could use the premises as a bag drop-off and they would visit the premises and have a drink when they completed their run. When the Runners first started, there were approximately 10 to 12 people in the group, which has since grown. Once the Applicant became aware the runners were causing a nuisance, they spoke with their organiser and it was agreed that the meeting point for the Runners would be moved to Tanner Park, which was some distance away and would return to Chapter 72 for a post-workout drink.

 

When asked about the criticism made by residents, that the number of people allowed outside had been regularly exceeded, the applicant stated that the number of people seated hadn’t been exceeded.  A lot of pictures within the agenda papers showed no evidence of people standing outside with alcoholic

drinks in their hands.

The applicant advised that they were able to control patrons that were seated, but they couldn’t be expected to control passers-by.

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 1 who questioned the legality of condition 343 that was on the current licence and advised that a resident review of the licence was almost inevitable.  Other person one highlighted various photos contained in the Agenda papers that demonstrated the daily number of patrons obstructing the highway, both in terms of the footway and the road.  The sub-committee were asked to consider the potential impact increasing the number of patrons outside the premises would have on the local community and immediate neighbours. 

 

Other person 1 spoke of their life being negatively impacted, with large groups of people sitting outside their house and interfering with the pleasures of their daily life.  Patrons were not quietly sitting having a quiet drink, they were loud and noisy, making it impossible to hear the television properly without turning it up loud. It was no longer possible to have a quiet conversation at home due to the people congregating outside, the volume of patron’s voices increasing the more they become intoxicated.

Other person 1 stated that they had reported their complaints to licensing, but due to the attitude of the licencing officers it was felt the best way was reporting the breaches of the pavement license.

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 3, who lived immediately next door to the premises. They questioned the applicant’s statement that once they had received permission for extra tables and chairs from the Highways Licensing Team on 30 June 2026, stickers were placed on the tables stating that no alcohol could be consumed on them. Other person 3 pointed out that none of the photographs in the agenda papers, showed the stickers. The resident also had never seen the mince pies campaign although they recognised the efforts the applicant made on community event days.

 

Other person 3 stated they suffered at home with the noise from the premises during the daytime; their ground floor room facing Bermondsey Street was unusable as a home office as the patrons’ conversations were a distraction.

 

 At night, noise from the premises permeated through the walls, which meant there was a constant bass thrum through the wall. In the upstairs rooms facing Bermondsey Street it was impossible to have the windows open with the noise of patrons and music.  Whilst there were positive things being done for the wider community, the premises remained a nuisance to neighbours.

 

Other person 3 also claimed that the applicant was slowly encroaching further and further, outside their home, giving examples such as the table and chairs being placed outside other person 3’s access door, a dog water bowl in front of the access door, bikes being placed in front of their window etc.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 5 who referred to the complaints made to the licensing unit.  Other person 5 also highlighted an incident when a birthday party took place. At 15:00 hours, the music was so loud the television couldn’t be heard at all, even with the volume turned up. The applicant was politely asked to turn the music down, which was refused, so the matter was reported to the Noise and Nuisance Team. Officers who assessed that the noise was intrusive and continuous in duration.  Members weren’t advised whether an Abatement Notice was issued to the applicant.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from other person 8 who stated the section of Bermondsey Street where the premises was located was more residential.  Other person 8 also pointed out that the applicant had failed to state in their verbal submissions that they would attempt to improve the issue with the chairs and the tables exceeding doorways.

 

The licensing sub-committee finally heard from other person 10 who explained that like others, it was the party wall where noise from the premises could be heard. The resident was surprised the applicant believed they were considerate to residents regarding noise, as other person 10 was unaware of any such effort.  The resident had resided in the neighbourhood for almost 20 years and had two children.  For the last nine years, the resident had to bear the brunt of the noise which disturbed their children's sleep. The resident’s bedroom was on the ground floor and suffered from ill-health; on the occasions when noise thumped through the walls, it was unbearable, giving them a headache.

 

There were two licences being questioned by residents, in play at the premises; the pavement licence and the premises licence. The licence being considered by the sub-committee related to application for a variation of the premises licence only. The pavement licence was concerned a different licensing regime that was beyond the remit of licensing sub-committee.

 

Condition 343 provides: “The accommodation limit for the outside of the premises as indicated on the premises plans shall not exceed 4 patrons”. 

 

The four patrons referred to in this condition relates to the sale of alcohol and patrons drinking alcohol in the small outside area outside the front of the premises which forms part of the licensable area of the premises. If more than four patrons were congregating outside the premises with alcohol, it would likely breach the premises license. It may also breach the pavement licence. If more than four patrons were congregating outside the premises without alcohol, it wouldn’t breach the premises licence.  It may, however, breach the pavement licence.

For completeness, condition 342 provides: “The accommodation limit for the inside of the premises shall not exceed 30 patrons”.  This relates to all patrons, number of patrons specified was likely set in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005/London Fire Brigade.

 

To allow either the responsible authorities to regulate the licensable area of the premises licence, or the Highways Licensing Team regulate the highway, the Members considered the plans for the premises.  It was unanimously agreed to vary the premises licence so the accommodation limit for the outside of the premises be limited to a maximum of 8 patrons all of whom who must be seated. 

 

Due to complaints of noise, the sub-committee were not minded to increase the patron number beyond eight.  The applicant is urged to vary their pavement licence to permit this only.

 

The licensing sub-committee is mindful of the residents’ complaints but notes the licensing unit only received two of those complaints (on 13/08/2026 and 15/08/2026).  It was noted that no representation was received from the Environmental Protection Team (on behalf of the Noise and Nuisance Team), the licensing authority’s main source of advice on matters relating to the prevention of public nuisance licensing objective. 

 

In view of the complaints and issues raised by residents, they may consider applying to have the premises licence reviewed which could ultimately, result in a sub-committee revoking the premises licence.  If residents resolve to submit such an application, they are strongly encouraged to inform the relevant responsible authorities when they believe there is a statutory noise nuisance, or the if they should believe the premises licence was breached.  In doing so, corroborating evidence is available to sub-committee.  The Noise and Nuisance Team can be contact on 020 7525 5777 who aim to respond within one hour. The Rapid Response Team operates every day between 08:00 to 04:00 hours.

 

If residents believe a breach of the pavement licence has taken place, they should contact highwayslicensing@southwark.gov.uk

Because the application being determined by the licensing sub-committee was for the variation of the premises licence, it would be unlawful to consider any of the options available if this were a review application. This notice of decision is not an indication of any future sub-committee’s decision.

 

The licensing sub-committee directs the Licensing Unit to forward a copy of this notice of decision to the Highways Licensing Team.

 

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 to modify the conditions of the licence; and

 

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

 

a)  That the variation ought not to have been made; or

b)  That, when varying the licence, the licensing authority ought not to have modified the conditions of 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 justices’ clerk for 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.