Wandsworth Council blocked the livestream of The Angel pub’s licence hearing on Thursday night, claiming, bizarrely, that there was too much community interest for it to be shown to people. The council also claimed that election rules applied.
During what was then a closed meeting, the council decided to postpone the hearing and hold a second closed meeting later this month – which will still be during the election period – to decide the pub’s fate.
“Due to the high level of community interest in this application, and in line with restrictions during the pre election period, this Licensing Sub Committee meeting will not be livestreamed or webcast,” a note on the council website reads.
At the closed hearing, we have since found out, the Metropolitan Police – which brought the case and want The Angel’s licence revoked – asked for more time. This is despite the fact that the police gathered enough evidence to raid the pub six months ago.
Councillors agreed to the request and moved the hearing to 29 April – a week before local elections – as a fully remote meeting with no press or public allowed. Yesterday, the council posted its reason online: “It is in the public interest that the application receives a fair hearing and that appropriate time is had for all evidence to be reviewed.”
Which is, of course, what a public hearing is designed to do.
Labour holds Roehampton ward’s three seats by around 600 votes. The petition to save The Angel has 650 signatures. Due to the delay, the decision over the Angel Pub’s future will now come out the day before the election.
If the hearing had gone ahead as planned, that decision – which might shut down one of only two pubs in a ward of 20,000 residents – would have been made public two weeks before election day.
Why the council’s explanation doesn’t hold up
Election rules (called ‘purdah’ in outdated British Empire language) say the party in power can’t use council resources just before an election so they don’t get an unfair advantage.
But those rules, poorly understood by most people – including, it appears, the council itself – are increasingly misused. This appears to be one of those times. Residents have the right to watch or attend council meetings whether there’s an election on or not. That’s not something purdah touches. And at a licensing hearing, councillors aren’t making political decisions: they’re adjudicating under licensing law, more like judges than politicians. The council has pointed to no specific law and shown no written policy to justify the decision.
But a decision to shut the local pub just before an election? That becomes political.
Last year, the council published a press release headlined “A More Open, Modern and Listening Council,” promising to webcast Cabinet, Full Council and scrutiny meetings. We told readers on 10 April that the Angel hearing would be live to watch. There was no reason to believe otherwise.
Why the 29 April hearing doesn’t need to be secret either
The law already gives councils a way to deal with sensitive evidence without locking everyone out: they can close specific parts of a hearing where material needs to stay private, such as detailed police intelligence, while keeping the rest open. The police have every right to ask for more time and to keep sensitive information away from public view. The council has a ready-made way to do both without shutting the public out entirely and has done so repeatedly at recent licensing hearings. It chose not to use it this week and to close the entire hearing – and it is imposing that extraordinary measure again later this month.
Labour’s three Roehampton ward councillors, Jenny Yates, Matthew Tiller and Graeme Henderson, backed the police review of the pub in a written statement. The police want it shut down entirely. All three councillors are standing again on 7 May. None of their constituents will be in the room when councillors decide on The Angel’s fate.
Yesterday, we sent the council several questions:
- What is the legal basis for blocking the webcast, who made that decision and when?
- Was the same rule applied to other council meetings during this period?
- Does the council think the 29 April meeting lives up to its duty to be open?
- Does it believe election rules restrict the public’s right to watch licensing hearings?
We also wrote to the council’s Monitoring Officer (whose job is to make sure the council acts within the law) to challenge the decision, wrote to council leader Simon Hogg and to Fleur Anderson MP, and filed Freedom of Information requests for the council’s webcasting policy and a record of who decided to block the webcast and why. The council has yet to respond.
The police first moved against The Angel after a raid in late 2025 involving a helicopter and dogs in which two people were arrested. They say it is the most crime-ridden pub in the borough. Ten submissions agreed. Not one defended the pub.
What you can do
Abdus Choudhury, the council’s Monitoring Officer, is at abdus.choudhury@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk. Fleur Anderson MP is at fleur.anderson.mp@parliament.uk. Watch the council’s website for any update on the 29 April hearing.
