Private Girls’ School Can Sell Alcohol to Parents at Sports Ground

Published on: 16 Apr, 2026
Updated on: 19 Apr, 2026

Tormead School. Wikipedia

By Emily Dalton

local democracy reporter

An exclusive Surrey girls’ school has won the right to sell alcohol at its sports pavilion despite angry opposition from local people.

Although council officers recommended that the plan to sell drinks at sports events should be refused, councillors ruled in favour of the school on April 14.

Guildford Borough Council approved a licence for Tormead School’s Urnfield Pavilion allowing alcohol to be sold to parents, players and paying guests.

Schematic view of the Urnfield Sports Ground used when planning permission was granted. GBC

Councillors revised the school’s original plans for a seven-day, 7am-to-10pm bar, instead allowing sales from midday to 8pm Monday to Thursday, and midday to 10pm on Fridays and Sundays.

Anyone drinking outside must head indoors an hour before closing, and all outdoor drinks must be served in recyclable or biodegradable containers.

The ruling means the exclusive private school can now serve alcohol at sporting events and private lettings. The school says it needs to “sweat its assets” to combat the government’s VAT increases.

Environmental health officers stopped short of objecting, but called for strict conditions, including staff training, a complaints procedure and controls on how crowds disperse.

When planning permission was granted on appeal in 2022, the sports ground was to be shared with Guildford County School, but there is no mention of County School on the licencing application. We have tried to contact Tormead and County School to clarify if County School is also affected.

Residents lambasted the idea of alcohol flowing while children train and compete, with one writing: “Tormead is an education provider, not a pub.”

Another added they had seen “overly competitive parents” already and questioned whether adding alcohol into the mix was wise, warning it could encourage drink-driving and clash with the school’s “healthy lifestyle” ethos. One neighbour suggested a “decent cup of coffee” might be more appropriate.

The upmarket private school insisted the site would not become a boozy free for all. “This is a sports pavilion: it is not a bar, it is not a nightclub,” the planning agent told councillors.

Alcohol would be “ancillary” to sport: think of a glass of wine at sports day or a pint for adult hockey and cricket teams hiring the pitch at weekends, not all-day drinking sessions.

Teacher Mr Pattison said the school had already handed out free drinks at events for years “without any complaints”. Money raised, he said, would go towards bursaries and scholarships.

Locals were unconvinced and in some cases alarmed. Neighbours recounted with trepidation anti-social behaviour from hooligan youths in the summer months, drinking, vaping and ‘car-surfing’.

One resident living just 10 metres from the pavilion said: “Any noise carries. You can hear conversations in the garden.” They warned the licence would bring a “completely different pattern of behaviour” to the quiet cul-de-sac.

Others warned that selling alcohol in an area deprived of public transport would almost encourage drink driving. But the applicant’s agent advised that “personal responsibility” plays a role and plenty of pubs have car parks- it does not mean they are accountable for drunk-driving incidents.

“We’ve heard all this before,” one resident said, adding trust in the school was “at an all-time low” after controversial planning applications.

There were also concerns about children mixing with unknown adults at the site. One speaker questioned how pupils could be safeguarded if drinkers were using the bar while sports sessions were ongoing.

The school insisted there would be no overlap, with lettings only starting after pupils had left, and said staff would supervise the bar.

Despite the backlash, councillors ultimately sided with the school. Members acknowledged the concerns raised but said they had to legally rely on evidence of harm. They said there was no clear evidence the licence would lead to crime, disorder or harm to children.

But they also made clear the original application went too far, rejecting the idea of near all-day, seven-day drinking. Instead, they struck what they called a “fair and proportionate balance”, allowing alcohol sales but with tighter hours and rules.

The decision means Tormead can now serve alcohol from the pavilion within the agreed limits. If problems do arise, residents can push for the licence to be reviewed and potentially scaled back.