Welcome to L Community
In March 2025 L Community applied to establish the UK's first female-only lesbian venue in Southwark. The application was fully lawful under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010.
Southwark Council rejected the application without lawful justification. That decision is now under challenge by way of a High Court Judicial Review.
The Judicial Review has been issued, sealed, and formally served on Southwark Council. The case is now before the High Court.
This legal test case will determine whether councils can lawfully refuse female-only spaces, or whether women's rights under the Equality Act must be enforced in practice.
This also engaged the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which requires councils to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. The For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling (2025) further confirmed that 'woman' in law means biological sex, meaning councils must apply Schedule 3 correctly when allocating public assets.
Despite this, Southwark Council rejected the application, redirecting it to private lettings and dismissing the safeguarding basis as a 'commercial enquiry'. Below is the full timeline and rejection letter that are now central to the legal case.
L Community never asked for charity. The application was for a standard lease with full rent, utilities and bills paid. What Southwark was asked to do was not to bend rules but to apply the law.
Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010 permits female-only services where needed for privacy, dignity or safety. Section 149 of the same Act, the Public Sector Equality Duty, requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality. The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland (2025) confirmed that 'woman' in law means biological sex. A safeguarding request framed under this law could not lawfully be dismissed as a 'commercial enquiry'.
The numbers are clear. Southwark controls more than 850 railway arches for cultural and community use, many lying empty. Their own Low Line strategy identifies surplus arches for social benefit. £3.14 million in London funding has been channelled to LGBTQ+ projects since 2019, yet not a penny and not a single unit of space has ever been allocated to a female-only lesbian venue.
Even if no arches had been available, which is contradicted by Council documents, L Community made clear that any lawful unit in the borough would have been acceptable. No alternative was offered. No officer-led assessment was undertaken. Other groups have received premises. The only female-only lesbian service was refused.
This outcome is not neutral. It is discrimination in practice. The statutes, the figures and the Council's own policy papers show the refusal cannot stand. This case is not about preference or subsidy. It is about forcing the Equality Act to be applied equally, and creating the first legal precedent to protect women-only spaces nationwide.
This decision is now under challenge by way of a High Court Judicial Review.
Southwark Council: Corporate complaint
Our reference: 39001922
10th July 2025
Dear Jenny Watson
Thank you for your request for a review of your complaint that we received. I have investigated this matter, and I am writing now to let you know my decision.
Your complaintAccording to our records you are unhappy with the way Southwark Council responded to your safeguarding request.
My InvestigationI would like to start by extending my sincere apologies for the delay in handling your complaint. The complaints investigation team have received a high volume of complaint escalations. Since each complaint is individually investigated, the task of working through the backlog has taken much longer than expected. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that the delay may have caused you some uncertainty and for that I am sorry. Thank you for your patience.
To investigate your complaint, I have inspected the correspondence history in relation to your request for premises under the Equalities Act. My investigation also involved liaising with the Head of Sustainable Growth, the Director of Planning and Growth, the Head of Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion, and the Head of Law, Governance and Assurance.
My DecisionI do not uphold your complaint. The reason for my decision is outlined below.
Complaint HistoryIn your email dated 2nd April 2025, you expressed your frustration after the Council directed you to private letting agents in response to your request for a venue for your Community Interest Company (CIC), that supports lesbian and bi-sexual women, survivors of violence and neurodivergent women. You explained that "despite clear alignment with the Council's Public Sector Equality Duty, your safeguarding-led venue request had been redirected to a private letting agents and treated as a commercial enquiry."
On 10th April 2025, your complaint was responded to at stage 1 of the Council's complaints procedure. The response explained that the Council is delivering a prominent facility for the LGBTQ+ community at Bankside Yards. It went on to explain that a number of affordable workspaces will be provided to let to LGBTQ+ groups and is intended to provide safe and inclusive workspaces, that may be a good solution for your organisation LCommunity CIC. It explained that the facility is scheduled to open in late spring 2026 and that you could be put in touch with the future operator. The response also signposted you to the LGBTQ+ Community Space at Hopton Street which is supported by the Council.
On 18th April 2025, you emailed to express your dissatisfaction over the response. You outlined the following:
After reviewing your complaint as well as a review of the information you so kindly provided to me, I am able to respond to the points you raised in your complaint escalation.
After reviewing the correspondence history, I have established the following:
The timeline above demonstrates that your request and correspondence were acknowledged and responded to. I appreciate that the responses did not contain the information you had hoped for. However, I am satisfied that you did receive a response and that, although the interpretation of the legislation was different to your own, you were provided with a substantive response.
To ascertain whether the Council's Legal or Equalities Team reviewed your request, I was provided with the Council's Governance Lawyers' briefing notes to Cllr Cryan. The document makes reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under Paragraph 27 of Schedule 3 of the Equalities Act 2010. In addition, an inspection of the Council's internal correspondence has revealed that the Head of Equalities Diversity and Inclusion had discussed your request with the Council's Assistant Governance Lawyer.
Please note, the complaints procedure is not in place to interpret or challenge the interpretation of statutory legislation. However, I am satisfied that the Council have indeed considered your request appropriately by gathering information from both the Legal Team and Equalities personnel. If you would like to challenge the interpretation of the legislation you refer to, you are advised to seek independent legal advice.
I would also like to address the handling of this complaint. Southwark Council's complaint policy states that all complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This did not happen. Please accept my sincere and unreserved apologies for the delay. Thank you for your patience whilst I have carried out a thorough investigation of your complaint.
This is our final response to your complaint. You may now complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Website: https://www.lgo.org.uk/how-to-complain
Telephone: 0300 061 0614
If you have any questions, please email [email protected].
Following Southwark Council's final refusal dated 10th July 2025, the matter was escalated to the High Court by way of Judicial Review.
A Judicial Review claim was filed with the Administrative Court.
An Insistence was submitted at the Court's request, confirming that no alternative remedy existed.
The High Court issued and sealed the Judicial Review, assigning the case Watson v London Borough of Southwark Council.
Southwark Council was formally served with the sealed claim and full evidence bundle.
A Certificate of Service (N215) was filed, confirming service had been completed correctly.
The case is now fully before the High Court. Southwark Council is required to respond, after which the Court will give directions for the Judicial Review.
The Council's refusal is no longer determinative. It is now subject to judicial scrutiny.
The High Court has issued the Judicial Review against Southwark Council.
Southwark Council must now file its response. The Court will then decide the next procedural steps, including whether permission is granted and how the case proceeds.
Support goes into running L Community: the app, hosting, moderation, safeguarding and the events programme. We take no personal benefit.
Notifications
