The already fractious dispute over Sweet Tooth Café’s bid to stay open until 1.30am on weekends has taken a darker and more unsettling turn, as an anonymous letter addressed to local residents has come to light — two weeks after a heated council licensing hearing.
The typed letter, titled ‘Noise and Non Disturbance Warning‘, was allegedly delivered to residents of Ormonde Court, directly opposite the café on Upper Richmond Road. It appears to have been sent prior to the 8 July hearing and was provided anonymously to Putney.news.
While it is possible the note is an elaborate hoax, and there is no mention of an anonymous note in the documents that have been made publicly available, its details tally with what is known both publicly and privately about the case, and a significant amount of material around the case has been redacted by the council.
At first glance, the note reads like a clumsy fan letter to the café’s owner, Maja Dragovich. But it quickly takes a more ominous tone — dismissing local concerns, defending late-night activity, and ultimately suggesting that anyone unhappy with the situation should leave the area altogether.
“Please note that if you have problems with this,” it concludes, “you really ought to move to Surrey.”
What makes the letter more concerning is that it outlines operational details that were not public at the time, including the proposed addition of a “soundproof curtain” at the front of the café. That detail was only revealed during the licensing meeting — suggesting the author may have had access to confidential or pre-meeting discussions with the applicant.
Residents, some of whom gave formal evidence to Wandsworth Council’s licensing sub-committee, say the letter’s tone mirrors the very problems they raised: a dismissive, hostile attitude to legitimate complaints about noise, antisocial behaviour, and treatment of neighbours.
“Dear residents,” the note begins, “Sweet Tooth Café (directly opposite Ormonde Court) is run by the wonderful Maja, and they have worked tirelessly to create a place which is comfort, kindness and home for many people (including many that are lonely).
“On a Friday and Saturday night, they may be allowed to stay open until 1.30pm [sic]. They have made the café larger, and on the occasion they might have live singing (not every week) they have moved the music space to the back of the cafe, so as not to cause any disturbance to neighbours. They are also getting a soundproof curtain for the front of the cafe for occasions such as this, because they are considerate.”
It then changes tone:
“I think you may agree that we live on a very busy, noisy road IN LONDON. Sirens blast past us all hours of the day and night. For a cafe/bar to be allowed to serve customers that they love, and who love them on a Friday and Saturday night is not outside the realms of fairness.”
The anonymous note then concludes in a mildly threatening manner: “Please note that if you have problems with this, you really ought to move to Surrey.” With the last part emphasised in bold text.
Decision still missing two weeks on
Despite the high-profile nature of the 8 July hearing where councillors heard more than a dozen objections and a range of often disturbing testimony, the outcome remains unpublished. One other licence application discussed on the same night was decided and posted online a week ago. Sweet Tooth’s remains conspicuously absent.
That has fuelled speculation that intensive negotiations may be taking place between council officers and the café’s representatives behind the scenes, possibly over noise mitigation, operating conditions, or hours of operation.
The hearing itself was dramatic. Residents spoke of being kept awake until 4am, confronting groups outside the café, and being dismissed or even threatened when they tried to raise concerns. One tenant described being told, “We forced Michael [the previous tenant] out. We can force you out.”
An 87-year-old woman, Ms Ellen, spoke of being “shooed out” when she crossed the road to ask staff to lower the volume. The environmental health officer confirmed that a statutory noise nuisance had been recorded, and recommended no licence extension unless major improvements were made to sound insulation.
In contrast, the café’s solicitor offered a defence built around a list of promised conditions from a ban on “vertical drinking” to a staff-managed limit of five smokers outside and dismissed many of the complaints as irrelevant or exaggerated.
A letter that changes the tone
The emergence of this anonymous letter will likely sharpen scrutiny over the café’s approach to community relations. While the author’s identity remains unknown, the timing, content, and inside knowledge have raised eyebrows — and reinforced concerns that some supporters of the venue view dissent as something to be silenced.
Wandsworth Council has been approached for comment on when a formal decision will be announced. As of publication, there has been no response.
Until then, residents, and indeed the wider neighbourhood, are left waiting. The late-night café at the centre of Putney’s most dramatic licensing dispute in years may soon get its answer. But the scars left by the process may take longer to fade.
