Tim Lord, the chair of the Soho Society charity

THE Soho Society’s chair said he would not apologise for defending his members after the charity was ordered to pay significant costs for a lost legal battle with Westminster City Council.

Tim Lord said the charity’s organisers had “bonded” over the challenge against a decision to approve a licence for an award-winning gin distillery beneath a couple’s home in Meard Street.

The society’s barrister had told Westminster Magistrate’s Court legal costs could “bankrupt” the charity that is celebrating its 50th village fête later this month.

Mr Lord also doubted claims that Westminster Labour politicians had pressed council officers to waive tens of thousands of pounds of the costs due to him being the party’s West End ward candidate for next year’s council elections. He told Extra: “We have the funds to carry on and we will be all right. We had reserves for litigation and we rolled the dice and were unlucky. For us to have ignored these two people on a licensing matter would have been a complete abandonment of our obligations as a charity. Our primary purpose is planning and licensing. It was in Soho.”

Last week Conservative group leader Paul Swaddle surprised council leader Adam Hug with a question about whether Labour councillors had ordered officers to waive fees connected to the case. He had said: “Does the leader understand that residents and members of the Soho Society are furious that the society has been put into peril due to the political ambitions for one of his candidates for May 2026? Does he not think there is a clear conflict of interests?”

He added: “Can the leader assure me that no Labour politician was involved in the decision to waive the £100,000 of council costs spent fighting this case to save the political ambitions of one of their fellow party members and declared candidates. Note, we will be putting an FOI in to get this information.”

Cllr Hug initially said “I’m not sure what he is referring to”, before adding, “My belief is that all appropriate matters have been followed. This is not a matter I have been involved in. Recognising the pressures a charity faces, a clear response has been given to you by officers.”

The true cost waived by the council is believed to be far less than stated by Cllr Swaddle, relating to “internal” solicitor fees.

The district judge had been told by the society’s barrister James Rankin: “If you make an order to that effect, it will bankrupt the society.”

Responding this week Mr Lord said: “I’m quite angry really as there is a lot of rubbish being said. And it has made me think why is the Soho Society having to do this work? Why did the council not help this couple and intervene? No councillor has done anything for them. The suggestion by Swaddle that the council didn’t pursue its cost isn’t really true. They didn’t pursue their internal costs. It is down to the judge to award costs, not the council. Why did the judge not award full costs? It may have been that we are a nice charity. The other reason is that all our concerns about fire safety are completely with merit.”

Last year 30 residents objected to a licensing application from the Green Room Distillery to open a gin shop in Meard Street. The main concerns were fire safety as ethanol was to be stored, in the building, beneath a couple’s bedroom. The licence was granted based on London Fire Brigade evidence that the society said it had no advance warning about. It later commissioned a leading fire safety expert who said the council’s decision was flawed.

Mr Lord said, on reflection, the society could have “spent more time” on the legal challenge, and added: “That was an error.”

The case was lost on a technical argument about the remit of the Licensing Act 2003. Westminster Magistrates’ Court senior district judge Paul Goldspring ruled that distilling alcohol is not an activity covered by the act, and removing the Green Room’s licence would do nothing to stop the distillation part of the business from continuing.

The judge said: “On one view, because under the Licensing Act 2003, distilling is not classified as a licensable activity and does not directly regulate the act of distilling itself, the appeal must fail there, without the need for further consideration. While the argument… has merit, it is essential to evaluate the broader implications and regulatory requirements comprehensively.”

At the hearing Peter Cave, the freeholder of the property above the distillery, “expressed alarm at the idea of flammable substances being introduced beneath his home”, it was reported in the Local Government Lawyer trade media outlet.

Mr Lord said the society had grounds for a further appeal but it had “blown all the cash” on the original hearing and would not be pursuing it further. The society was looking forward to the Pride celebrations this weekend before its landmark 50th fête on July 20. “We’ll have a wonderful fête. We have bonded over this as a community. We do not apologise for representing our members in this way.”

The award-winning gin distillery was established by friends Duncan McLean and Seb Frost when their jobs in theatre were hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. It had asked for a costs order totalling £27,166, saying it should not be “required to pick up the tab for the Soho Society’s failed attempt”. In its original licensing application it had said: “Our ethos is that spirits should be produced in the most authentic way. We will never use flavourings or colourings, our spirits will be the purest and most premium they can possibly be. The Green Room’s new home will be the first and only fully operational legal distillery in Soho. Bottling will take place on site which allows for easy distribution to our current stockists situated in and around the West End.”

Fred Quartermain, partner in Thrings’ planning and environment team, representing GRD, said: “The distillery has demonstrated from the outset its commitment to public safety and responsible operation. The judgment not only confirms the legality of the licensing decision but also underscores the importance of allowing new, creative, businesses to thrive within a fair and proportionate regulatory framework.”