A brewery has been granted a licence to sell alcohol despite significant concerns raised by local residents about potential noise disturbances. Br3wery, located at 97 Moyser Road, London SW16 6SJ, received permission to sell alcohol for consumption on and off the premises.
The Wandsworth Licensing Sub-Committee heard that while the applicant, Br3wery Ltd, had agreed to numerous conditions with responsible authorities, including the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Services, 19 objections were lodged by local residents. The primary concern among objectors was noise emanating from the premises, particularly from the rear garden and from patrons leaving the venue.
Residents expressed worries about voices carrying into their homes and gardens, disturbances from customers congregating in the street, and the impact of extended opening hours on their quality of life and sleep patterns. Some also raised concerns about potential litter and anti-social behaviour.
Representing Br3wery Ltd, solicitor Sarah Louise Taylor highlighted the operators' experience, stating that across their three licensed premises, there have not been any substantiated noise complaints, no complaints directly from neighbours about how they've operated.
¹ She described Br3wery as a taproom
with a low-key, family-friendly atmosphere, distinct from any issues potentially arising from neighbouring premises. The capacity of the taproom
itself (indoors) is approximately 30 people.
Taylor emphasised that Br3wery had agreed to a robust set of conditions
with the Metropolitan Police and Environmental Health. These conditions, detailed in Appendix A of the report Public reports pack 06th-Aug-2026 19.00 Licensing Sub-Committee.pdf, include CCTV installation and operation, a Challenge 25
age verification policy, staff training on responsible alcohol retailing and incident reporting, maintaining a refusals log and an incident log, management supervision, and specific conditions for outdoor areas, conduct of premises, deliveries/collections, off-sales, restrictions for children, private events, door supervisors, and welfare/vulnerability. Condition 50 regarding Concurrent Use of Premises Licences
was noted as potentially difficult to operate with, as it was contingent on licensable activities at Hazel's.
Specific conditions were agreed to manage external areas, limiting customer numbers to 24 at the front and 36 at the rear, with operating hours for these areas ending at 21:00 and 22:00 respectively. The proposed hours for the sale of alcohol are from 12:00 to 22:30 on Sundays to Thursdays, and 12:00 to 23:00 on Fridays and Saturdays. For the external areas, the front seating area is permitted until 21:00, and the rear seating area is permitted until 22:00, both Monday to Sunday. The New Year's Eve provision allows trading From the end of authorised hours on New Year's Eve to the start of authorised hours on the following day.
Br3wery offered an additional condition to provide residents with a direct telephone number to the operators to address any immediate concerns.
The solicitor stated that if the licence is granted and issues arise, residents can contact this number, and the operators will investigate it and do something about it.
The operators also mentioned that their manager is responsible for monitoring external areas and responding promptly to concerns, and that they aim to sort out any problems as soon as possible by talking to customers and implementing controls.
Councillor Leonie Cooper, representing Furzedown Ward, acknowledged Br3wery's positive contribution to the area but echoed concerns about noise from the rear garden. She suggested physical noise mitigation measures, such as higher fencing, to create a sound barrier.
Local residents Faith Woodruff and Debbie Morey reiterated their concerns about noise from the rear garden, agreeing with the need for noise buffering. However, they disagreed with extending drinking hours at the front of the property, citing noise carrying over to properties opposite and above.
In their closing remarks, the applicant proposed a condition requiring a noise management plan
which would allow for flexibility in implementing noise mitigation measures and testing their effectiveness.
² The solicitor suggested this as a solution rather than specific conditions on fencing and parasols, stating it would allow for testing what works and making adjustments without needing to vary the licence each time. It was also suggested that the plan could be discussed with the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and that the EHO could visit to review the implemented measures.
The committee ultimately granted the licence, with the full details of the decision to be confirmed in writing within five working days.
¹ The meeting information does not provide a specific definition of 'substantiated noise complaints' used by the licensing committee, but it is implied that these would be formal complaints that have been investigated and found to have merit. ² The implementation and testing of this plan would be monitored through discussions with the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and potential site visits by the EHO to review implemented measures.
