The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider a single item: an application for a premises licence for the Canterbury Arms public house. The meeting's agenda also included standard procedural items.

Canterbury Arms Premises Licence Application

The primary focus of the meeting was scheduled to be the consideration of an application for a premises licence for the Canterbury Arms, located at 2-4 Maddock Way, London SE17 3NH. The application, submitted by Maurice Collins and Aidan Collins, sought permission to sell alcohol for consumption on and off the premises from 10:00 to 23:00 daily, with extended hours for non-standard timings on bank holiday weekends and New Year's Eve. The proposed opening hours for the premises were from 10:00 to 23:30 daily, with extended hours on bank holiday weekends and New Year's Eve.

The report pack detailed that the application had attracted seven representations objecting to the grant of the licence. These objections were from responsible authorities, including the Metropolitan Police Service and Southwark Council's Trading Standards service, as well as from local residents and a local ward councillor.

The Metropolitan Police Service submitted a representation objecting to the application as it was originally presented, citing concerns that the requested hours exceeded those recommended in the Southwark Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026¹. They noted that the premises had a recent history of serious crime and disorder, which led to the revocation of its previous premises licence following a fatal incident. While the police stated they were open to working with the applicant, their initial representation highlighted that the proposed control measures did not sufficiently address the licensing objectives, particularly the prevention of crime and disorder.

Southwark Council's Trading Standards service also made representations, primarily focusing on the protection of children from harm. They requested additional conditions related to a Challenge 25 proof of age scheme, staff training on underage sales, and the prominent display of age verification policies. The report indicated that these conditions were subsequently agreed upon by the applicant, leading Trading Standards to withdraw their representation.

Representations from other persons included those from local residents and Councillor John Batteson, the Newington ward councillor. These objections raised significant concerns regarding the premises' history, including a fatal incident in November 2025 that led to the previous licence being revoked. Residents highlighted issues such as noise nuisance from amplified music and karaoke, congregation of intoxicated patrons outside the premises, the use of glassware outdoors, and concerns about fireworks and suspected drug-related activity. They also expressed worries about the proposed early start time for alcohol sales (10:00) and the lack of specific conditions in the application to address these issues, particularly given the premises' location within a residential block. Some residents suggested that if a licence were to be granted, it should be subject to exceptionally strict conditions, including reduced operating hours, a ban on amplified music and external drinking, and a requirement for new management with no connection to previous operators.

The report pack also provided background information on the Licensing Act 2003², outlining the four licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, the promotion of public safety, the prevention of nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. It detailed the council's statement of licensing policy and relevant guidance from the Home Office. The report also included details of the premises' licence history, noting the surrender of the previous licence and the subsequent revocation following a summary review by the Metropolitan Police.

The report pack also mentioned the council's commitment to considering climate change implications and equalities impacts in its decision-making, although it stated that health impacts could not be considered under the Licensing Act 2003.