Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 7 August 2025, 7:00pm

Licensing Sub-Committee
Thursday, 7th August 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

2 Declarations of Interests

Share this agenda point

APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003

Share this agenda point

3 Best One, 169 Putney High Street, London, SW15 1RT (Paper No. 25-283)

Share this agenda point

4 Tequila Mockingbird (now known as Bad Habits), 46 Battersea Rise, London, SW11 1EE (Paper No. 25-284)

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Welcome to this meeting of the Licencing Subcommittee, which is being held as a hybrid meeting.

This meeting is being webcast, and please bear with us if there are any technical issues.

My name is Councillor French, and I am chairing this meeting.

I can also confirm that Councillor Burchill will be attending this meeting instead of

who was originally named on the agenda.

I can confirm that Councillor Burchall is a member of the licencing committee and therefore eligible to attend as a decision maker.

And she had received all relevant paperwork in advance of the meeting.

I now invite the councillors, followed by officers, to introduce themselves.

I'll go in alphabetical order.

If the other attendees could please introduce themselves as and when they come to speak.

I think this would make things easier as we are considering two applications this evening.

Thank you.

Yes, good evening, everybody.

I am Councillor Rosemary Virchall.

Good evening, everyone.

I am Councillor Samantha Arthur -Ithra Wonderwood.

Good evening.

Guy Bishop, Legal Advisor to the Licencing Subcommittee.

Good evening.

Samit Anand, Licencing Officer.

Thank you.

Good evening, I am Becky, I am the clerk.

Becky, do we have anybody online?

No?

No officers?

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to agenda items 1 and 2.

Are there any apologies for absence or declarations of interest for any items on the agenda?

2 Declarations of Interests

F yes, please could you confirm the apology, officers and Councillors.

any declarations of interest? Thank you. On to agenda item three. We will now consider

APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003

the first application on the agenda for a variation to a premises licence in respect

of the premises known as best one on 169 Putney High Street London SW 15 1RT. And I now invite

the licencing officer to introduce the application. Thank you very much chair. Inventure Putney

have applied to vary their premises licence held in respect of best one at 169 Putney High Street.

The premises currently hold a premises licence for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises only.

And a previous premises licence was issued in 2017, which allowed for the sale of alcohol until midnight Sunday to Thursday and 2 AM on Fridays and Saturdays.

The licence holder sought to reduce the hours for the sale of alcohol for Friday and Saturdays from 2 AM down to midnight.

This was granted under a minor variation in 2022.

The application today is seeking the hours until 2 a .m. all days of the week.

The existing and proposed licence activities are laid out in Appendix B, which is page 10 of your report.

The application was advertised as required under the legislation.

This resulted in the receipt of a representation

from the council's Environmental Services

Noise and Nuisance Team, who has opposed the application.

The officer was concerned about the impact

that this extension for later hours

could have on the neighbouring homes

due to the close proximity of residential properties

and the impact of noise from patrons attending the premises

and concerns with noise by delivery riders

and their vehicles.

A copy of the representation has been provided

to the applicant and to members

of this licencing subcommittee.

If granted, all existing conditions attached to the licence in black in Appendix A will

still apply.

Conditions highlighted in red have been offered by the applicant as additional conditions.

A copy of the existing licence is included in the bundle provided.

Subcommittee may today grant the application as requested or modify the conditions of the

licence or reject the whole or part of the application, modify or add these conditions

if it considers such steps to be appropriate.

Councillors, I have no other matters to raise here,

but I'd be happy to answer any of your questions

if you have any.

It's doing its own thing.

Okay, thank you for that.

Does the subcommittee have any questions

for the licencing officer?

Councillor Vafraj.

Could you just provide some clarification

on why in 2022 the hours were reduced

and then why they're seeking to extend the hours

from Monday to Friday, Monday to Thursday rather,

as well to 2 a .m. instead of the midnight

that it currently has.

Absolutely, absolutely, Councillor, thank you.

Unfortunately, our records don't show the reason

as to why the application hours

were originally reduced in 2022.

It's a voluntary thing that the applicant had done

via a minor variation and because it was a reduction,

and it was agreed via a minor.

And as for the entire week, it's as they've applied.

The conversations have taken place,

but there's been no amendment to that offering.

So I would ask the applicant to address that in their intro.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions of clarification

on anything that has been stated?

As a reminder, both the applicant and representations

will have a chance to address the subcommittee.

And this should only be where you would like clarification

on something that has been stated by the speaker.

I can see no requests for questions of clarification.

I will now invite the applicant, Mr. Amipara

and his agent, Mr. Hopkins, to introduce themselves

and to address the subcommittee.

And you will have five minutes to speak,

after which questions may be asked of you.

Graham Hopkins, Chair, GT Licencing Consultants representing Mr Amy Parra.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

I'm Rohith Amipura. I'm the Director of Invention, Patna Limited, who runs the store.

Thank you. Would you like to now address the subcommittee? You have five minutes.

Chair, that's what I'll be doing. We're asking for the application for 2 o 'clock all week.

You'll know that the hours Friday and Saturday, the framework hours are 2 o 'clock anyway.

3 Best One, 169 Putney High Street, London, SW15 1RT (Paper No. 25-283)

And I understand the Environmental Health Service didn't object to that because that's

within the framework hours.

So, such suggests that those,

as there's no other representation apart from the EHO,

that can be granted safely.

So we're just looking at Sunday to Thursday.

Very briefly, Mr. Amipara is, the shop is a one -stop shop.

People are, and the shop is already open 24 seven.

It's permitted to do so.

And as you all know, open hours are such not licenseable,

but the licence does allow them to do that.

So our argument suggestion is that,

But yes, post COVID, post the energy crisis, the cost of everything going up,

business has got title, hospitality and retail have both suffered.

So he's asking for the extended hours to meet the needs and requirements of his customers who might pop in there to buy some food and want to just buy a bottle of wine or something like that.

We've got robust conditions on the application, which you will have seen.

We have offered additional measures to boost the robustness and prevent any disturbance

to the residents.

I would point out not one of those residents that the officer has spoken about has made

a representation.

That includes the people over the shop who I understand have good relations with, Mr

Amipara, or the people either side.

No residents.

We had some initial discussions with the police.

They did not make a representation so I suggest that indicates the police are happy with the

extension.

they're not they've not objected to it and no other responsible authority has.

Now looking very briefly at the officer's comments, he states incorrectly that the best

one already has the licence out to two o 'clock the following day, Friday to Saturday, you

would have seen and heard that actually that happened, they've only got midnight all week.

So we are asking that the two o 'clock on the Friday, Saturday be granted. And also that

the rest of the week, bearing in mind that I said about the circumstances of the shot,

could be granted as an exception to the policy given that not one resident has objected.

And Mr Newby Walker has not provided any evidence against this shot, no noise reports, no complaints

about anything, nor have complete for other responsible authorities. We say that with

Mr. Gharab being such a good responsible operator

that with those conditions,

this shop will not cause any nuisance

given that it is already open all night long.

I have known Mr. Gharab for many years now,

and I can tell you that in my professional opinion,

20 years of being involved in licencing,

that he's one of our most responsible operators.

We reviewed the operating schedule together,

decided to leave all the existing conditions in force

and to offer the additional measures that are not going to go for at some time,

but you've seen them on the application.

We think that given this shop is not in the BIA,

that policy, not the law,

that the reason behind the request isn't to be awkward,

he's offered additional measures to stop noise nuisance and other nuisance for the residents.

We would ask you to grant the two hours every night or week as an exception to the policy.

But certainly, as I said, Friday and Saturday, chair are not opposed by the Environmental Health Officer.

I won't say any more. I'm sure we can come out to you in questions.

But just say, I hope you will look on this application favourably. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Hopkins. I now invite the subcommittee to pose any questions for the applicant.

Thank you very much Mr. Hopkins. You've said something which I didn't quite catch, that

the shop is not in I thought you said an EIA area no sorry it's a CIA cumulative

impact policy yes we're not we're not in one so we're not subject to the

rebuttable presumption to refuse thank you

can we just have a point of information please officers sorry yes can I just say

that the the policy covers the entire borough so that the impact policy so

So there is no one ever in the area, the whole borough was covered by that cumulative impact.

Thank you for that point of clarification.

Mr. Hopkins, did you hear that relayed?

I did, yes, thank you.

I wasn't aware of that.

We all...

That's okay, we're learning something every day, all of us.

We're never too old to learn.

So no, thank you and you can note it for future applicants.

I have.

Thank you.

I have a question. I just wanted to know whether the establishment had ever been under any

investigation. I appreciate there have been no representations from the police this evening,

but just wanted to get an inquiry as to whether there had been any investigations from the

in maybe the last five years or so?

I'll ask Mr Amipara to answer that if I may.

Shubhie, can you hear us?

Yeah, I'm just setting up my camera and mic.

We have been following all the rules and regulations

ever since we bought this shop since 2014, December 2014.

And there have been a number of test purchases

and all this routine visits from the officers, the council officers, and we have met all the requirements set by them.

So we never had any failure in terms of our duty. However, there was one incident, I think somewhere in 22,

where there was a fight broke out between customers and that's where police came to us and asked for the evidences and all the records.

and they were of the view that we didn't comply with our policies or at least the protocols.

Now we were successfully able to convince them that we have done everything that we were supposed to do.

There were some drunk customers and there was argument between them and there was a fight outside the shop.

We pressed the alarms, we called the police and before we called, luckily there was a police car patrolling,

car along the street so they were able to mitigate the situation immediately.

But apart from that we have been absolutely neat and clean, nothing whatsoever.

Thank you for that insight. So just to cheque, I know it was some years ago now,

but that incident you had described that they were drunk customers. Thank you for

being honest. The second part of that was that in the evening, in the day,

Do you have what time of day that incident took place in?

That was around night time, midnight.

Okay, thank you for that.

Anyone else on the subcommittee have any further questions?

I will now, are there any other questions of clarification on anything that has been

stated?

As a reminder, the representations will have a chance to address the committee and this

You should only be aware you would like clarification on something as stated by the speaker.

Thank you.

Council officer, please come in licencing.

Thank you.

Sorry, Chair.

Just to, I think, clarify after what the applicant has just said, it's timely that the event

incident took place in 2022, which is why the minor variation was probably submitted.

I mean, the applicant can confirm that himself.

But yes, it does go hand in hand.

in hand. Thank you for that point. Applicant, was the variation at around the same time

that this incident occurred, was there any, did the incident inform or influence the decision

for the variation? Yes, we were in discussion with the police officer and they suggested

we should reduce our hours and being cooperative operator, off -licence operator, we said, okay,

it's not going to make any difference to us and we agreed for the manual variation. However,

we can clearly see that we have lost a sensible amount of sales because of those reduced hours

and that has impacted the continuity of the business to a certain extent. And as Mr. Hopkins

said we are under pressure from various corners of the economy.

People are – the minimum wages are increasing.

The rates are back again.

I'm just going to come in there because that's fine.

You've already answered the question fully.

We're very much aware of the cost of living.

It's affecting the whole country, but that actually doesn't necessarily influence our

decision as the licencing committee.

So I will just interject there.

I have one further question.

This incident, do you recall what day of the week it occurred on? Was it on a weekend?

Was it in during the Sunday to Thursday region? I know it is some time ago, but it would be

useful to have that information if you could provide it, sir.

You're on mute, sir.

I don't recall the date actually, but somewhere it was Friday. Most likely it was Friday.

Thank you once again. I don't think we have any more questions. Councillor Burchill, please.

Thank you. Yes. Can I just ask you how many staff do you have on during the day and during

the night? So regularly we have two in the day as a minimum. It could be three on the

day of deliveries when there is a workload. During the night we have three people at all

time. So how many at night? Three. And what would you do or what would your staff do if

Somebody was to come into the shop and they were obviously under the influence of alcohol.

We straight away refused the sale. We never sell people who are under influence.

Thank you. So we have very robust training system for all our alcohol handling staff. They look for

challenge 25 policy, they look for their appearance, their body language and if they are found under influence, we refuse politely.

Thank you.

I have one more question. Just in terms of you had noticed that there has been a dip in cells,

is there just any particular alcohol that people are seeking between the hours of

12 to 2, is there, I think?

No, they need just access to the alcohol at a given point of time.

So, guys, we need, can you please help?

They ask us to open the shutter request to offer us some money under the table,

but we never end up in that kind of activity.

That's fabulous.

Yeah, we regularly see people asking for alcohol products after 12pm.

No, thank you.

So, but there's no specific, you know, some people might, I don't know, want a spirit or wine,

or the reason for the question is just being mindful of like street drinking and whether the

Clientele at that time of night where people seeking high high volume high

Alcoholics cider or bear or things like that. So that's thank you for the reassurance that you aren't doing any sort of you know

untoward activities

council the virtual

Thank you, yes, I was just wondering if you are expecting

to have people coming. I'm not sure how it's done when they phone up an order and it goes

off on a motorbike. Okay, so you're talking about probably deliver and Uber services,

right? So we don't have that services yet, but definitely we can comply with your demand.

If you say this is going to cause nuisance or a bit of noise to neighbours, we can put

oppose on that activity. That's not a very important part of our trade.

Thank you.

Okay, any further questions? Okay, I'd like to thank you, the applicant, and I'll move

on to invite in those making representations. That would be Mr Chaudhuri. Please introduce

yourself to address the subcommittee and you will have five minutes to speak after which

questions may be asked of you.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

My name is Gollum Chaudhary.

I'm actually covering one of my colleague, Environment Officer Rob Newby -Walker, who

is not present at this moment due to unforeseen circumstances.

I'm a noise officer in the same team, and Rob Newby -Walker is my colleague, so I'm doing

it on his behalf.

Now we work within the Regulatory Services Partnership and we present a responsible through

for environmental health noise. The Council on Environmental Health section noise initiative

in belief to the data is a licencing policy that has acted in the interests of both businesses

and residents of the borough and serve the licence objectives. Now as the application here

is requesting a version that would allow alcohol sales to cease at 200 hours daily,

that will place it beyond policy. Indeed the premises current licence allows for alcohol sales

to the full extent of current policy. Now noise service carried out across the borough

consistently indicate that ambient noise level falls around midnight during the week and

around 2 a .m. during the weekend. Residents can tolerate an element of noise disturbance

in the earlier part of the night when ambient noise levels are high. But potentially, a

global source or form of revellers, factories, street, shops, stores, and supermarkets selling

alcohol can act as a magnet for people leaving other licenced premises to top up their consumption.

The particular client group seeking to buy alcohol for consumption of the premises in

the early hours of morning, therefore, differs from those seeking to buy other goods. Noise

from revellers in the streets, from people smoking outside premises on the public highways

or noises associated with the coming and going of patrons.

And more increasingly these days, third party delivery drivers cannot be controlled by the

applicant nor by any other effective means other than by limiting the general hours in

which premises can operate.

While a stall application should be assessed on the regional merits, the principal concerns

for noise should be those residents for those residents who are close to the property and

so worse affected by noise.

In this case, there are residential properties over there. Three floors directly above the

premises with these residents overlooking the entrance to the premises. Given the very close

proximity of the residents, I believe that it is inappropriate for beyond the policy trading to be

considered, particularly where it granted as applied for. The premises would be an

outlier of policy and so would potentially experience a greater demand in policy time.

then purely its location would normally generate due to the other competition being absent

where they remain within policy.

As the premises hold a licence currently to the full extent of the policy, it is likely

that only the withdrawal of the application could satisfy the consensus.

I personally went to the area to investigate two days ago and I found two off -licence nearby.

One closes at 2300 hours, which is two days away from the applicant shop.

Another one less than 30 seconds away, that closes at 11 .30 in the week.

There's Sundays at 10 .30, which is understandable.

Now, from my experience, my own experience knowledge, I've been doing this job for over 20 years.

I'm not saying that this particular shop is going to cause a problem.

As I said, every individual area has its different issues.

But we do come across to do with a lot of complaints with off -licences where you have

– it attracts antisocial behaviour.

People are – they can't find drinks and alcohol anywhere else, so they come to these

Especially late hours, early hours of the morning when you've got residents living on the boat, there's bound to be complaints.

You have troubles like people come to ask for alcohol, like the gentleman said that people come and ask for alcohol out of hours and they refuse politely.

But sometimes politeness doesn't work because sometimes they're under the influence of alcohol.

It creates a problem.

Police gets involved, things like that.

That's the main reason is our – is the public nuisance.

They have delivery drivers revving engine when they're coming at one o 'clock in

the morning, two o 'clock in the morning, and if you have residents nearby waking up

people.

I know the applicant says they don't have this at the moment, but they're planning

to have this or they might have this in the future, which might cause problem.

The manufacturers residents can tolerate, you know, normal weekend, maybe a bit later,

but weekdays it becomes a bit difficult.

I'll leave it to the committee to deal with this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chaudhuri.

Thank you.

I've stopped my clock.

Are there any questions from the subcommittee on those making representations?

Do we have any questions?

We have no questions.

Thank you for the submission.

Chair, I've got a question if I may.

Yes, I was just about to come to you.

For the sake of my piece of paper, I will say are there any other questions of clarification

on anything that has been stated?

and I was going to welcome the applicant. Please go ahead Mr Hopkins. Thank you Councillor very

much. Could I just ask the gentleman to look at the licence in the pack where it says, as we've

said, on a Friday Saturday the current licence permits alcohol sales till midnight and the

framework hours are two. I'm reading Mr Newby Walker's representation. He hasn't objected to

Friday and Saturday to the policy hours being regranted. So could he please confirm whether

environmental health are objecting on the Friday and Saturday? Because I see nothing

in the representation. Thank you, Mr Hopkins. Mr Chaudhry, can you

comment on that clarification point? From what my, sorry, thank you. From what

my colleagues has written here on this report, I can see the gentleman is correct. He didn't

object to Friday and Saturday as on the weekend Friday Saturday residents

residents are more understanding and more they can tolerate their lateness

that's probably why but I can't exactly answer or no we'll just go by what's

written we have to and as your colleague is on holiday we take his written

report as dare I say gospel so that's what we'll work from mr. Hopkins do you

have anything further to clarify is that sufficient for you sir? I am grateful to the office of

Mr Choudry for that. As you will see Councillor when you look at it they haven't got two o 'clock

we are asking for two o 'clock Friday or Saturday as it is framework anyway. One other question

if I may, is Mr Choudry aware of any specific noise complaints against his premises because

we have not seen any evidence.

Mr Choudry.

From our records there has been no noise complaints.

Thank you very much.

Thank you both for the candid exchange there.

I will now invite each party to provide any closing remarks they would like to submit.

This should be limited to a maximum of two minutes.

I will first invite those making representations, followed by the applicant to address the licence

Mr Chadwe, I appreciate you just made a representation.

So I invite you now to make some closing remarks.

Thank you.

As I said just earlier, that as myself, I, because I was representing my colleague, I

thought maybe I should go around the area and have a look.

I was doing a cheque for the local – other off -licences, and nearby, as I said, two off -licences.

They closed earlier than the applicants' off -licence.

My main concern is the noise instance.

It might bring – I'm not saying it will bring – it might bring, which we normally

have that on other parts of the borough.

And that's the main concern.

And the main concern is the residents.

There is residents right above the applicant's shop, and people, especially on weekdays,

if they have any noise problem, then they would complain and it will disturb the residents.

The other factor is about the anti -social behaviour.

It attracts a lot of people, because then it becomes a target.

That shop is open till two o 'clock in the morning.

Yes, nobody else can find it, but we can go there and find our needs, alcohol, whatever.

That is the noise of the main factor. That is what I am more concerned about. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chaudhry. Mr Hopkins, I would now invite you, you have two minutes, to make your final remarks. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair. I would just remind the subcommittee, this shop is already open 24

or 24 or 7. It's committed to be so. You've heard they have three staff at night. We have offered

further robust conditions specifically to address noise. The staff will be required to monitor the

outside area by CCTV and physical cheques and ask people who are, if anybody was drinking outside

the shop or make noise to move away from the shop front and the premises. That's a task on them.

They also have to do a daily risk assessment to identify a possible need for an SIA security guard

or a door supervisor if necessary. So those measures are offered if the variation is granted.

We would ask you to grant this chair, especially the Friday or Saturday,

as that's within framework hours. But the other hours, bear in mind what you've heard from Mr

and what I have said to you about the burdens the shop has faced. We think there are no

noise complaints. The officers have told us that. We don't think there will be any and

none of the residents in that area or anywhere else have objected. I would ask you to grant

the application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Hopkins.

Thank you. That now concludes the first applicants discussion. After we have considered the second

application we will retire to a separate confidential meeting room to make the decision where only

members of the licencing subcommittee, the democratic services officer and legal advisor

will be present.

The decision, reasons and any legal guidance given during the subcommittee's discussion

that has informed their decision will be confirmed in writing together with information about

any rights of appeal within five working days.

I would like to say thank you for attending to the applicant and to the officer that made

representations.

I kindly ask you if you would like to leave, you are welcome to leave.

If you would like to stay, you can of course stay but I would encourage you to have your

mic off and your camera off for the proceeding of the meeting.

Thank you for joining us and you will hear from us in due course.

Bye bye.

Thank you.

Bye bye.

Thank you.

Bye bye.

So we will now be considering agenda item 4, the application relating to Tequila Mockingbird,

now known as Bad Habits Club.

Thank you to those for attending the best one application.

I've said it.

4 Tequila Mockingbird (now known as Bad Habits), 46 Battersea Rise, London, SW11 1EE (Paper No. 25-284)

You may now leave the meeting.

They may have left already.

Apologies.

We will now consider the application for a review of the premises licence in respect

of the premises known as Tequila Mockingbird, now known as Bad Habits Club, on 46 Battersea

rise London Sierra 11 1 EE I now invite the licencing officer to present the

report

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I've got a bit of a long intro for this one, so bear with me.

Thank you.

So the Haifa Road neighbourhood watch applied for a review of the premises licence held in respect of the bar now known as Bad Habits.

And as you've mentioned previously, it was known as Tequila Mockingbird.

46 Battersea Rise London SW11, 1EE.

On the grounds that they believe the premises have failed to uphold the licencing objectives under the Licencing Act 2003.

In particular, relation to prevention of crime disorder, public safety,

prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.

The applicant notes that although the premises has been rebranded from Tequila,

Mockingbird to Bad Habits, the licence remains in the name of Jonathan Bass.

The applicant states that there have been incidents requiring police intervention and

social behaviour and loud music.

A full copy of the application for the review has been provided to the premises

and to the members of the licencing subcommittee.

In accordance with Regulation 38 of the Licencing Act,

2003, responsible authorities were also sent a copy

of the application for the review

at the same time it was provided to the licensee.

In addition, the application was advertised

near the premises, at the council offices,

and on our website.

There have been three representations made

by other persons in support of the review,

and copies of the representations have been provided

to all parties, including the licencing subcommittee.

Following the publication of the original agenda, the licensee has provided additional information,

including additional proposed conditions, which were served on all parties as supplementary agenda on Monday the 4th of August.

The licensee submitted a transfer application on Tuesday the 4th of August, yes, Tuesday the 4th of August,

to transfer the premises licence from the name,

it's currently in the name of Jonathan Bass,

and it's going to be transferred to a company

called Bar SW1 Limited, of which Mr. Bass is a director.

Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the report outline the options

that are open to the subcommittee when deciding this review.

The applicant is asking, the review applicant is asking

that the premises licence be revoked

for failure to promote licencing objectives

under the same management.

However, should the licencing subcommittee decide

not to revoke the premises licence,

the review applicant is requesting

several additional conditions.

I refer you to page 61 of the main agenda,

plus a reduction in the operating hours,

which are laid out on page 52 of the main agenda.

In determining the application,

the subcommittee may take such the steps

as it considers appropriate for the promotion

of the licencing objectives,

which are you may take no further action,

you may issue an informal warning

to the designated premises supervisor and or licence holder,

and or recommend improvement

within a particular period of time.

You may modify the conditions of the licence,

which may include adding new conditions

or any alteration or omission to any existing condition,

for example, by reducing the hours of opening

or by requiring door supervisors, et cetera.

You may decide to exclude a licenceable activity from the scope of the licence.

You may decide to include a statement on the licence that section 177A does not apply

and thereby re -enacting conditions suspended under the Live Music Act 2012

relating to live recorded music played between 8am and 11pm.

You may remove the DPS, the designated premise supervisor.

You may decide to suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months

or you may decide to revoke the licence in its entirety.

Councillors, I think I've laid out all the brief facts here

of the review application,

but if you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Thank you, lot of options.

Thank you for that far out overview.

Does anyone from the subcommittee have any questions

for the licencing officer?

No, thank you.

Just for the privilege of people that may have joined,

the subcommittee has not changed in terms of who's present,

But I will welcome that when we introduce the applicant and any representations, please be sure to state your name for

people that aren't present in the room and also you don't have name tags in front of you, so just for transparency.

I will now invite the applicant, Mr. Kisses, okay, for

the review of Bad Habits Club to address the subcommittee, after which questions may be asked to you.

Please introduce yourself, sir.

You will now have a maximum of ten minutes to address the subcommittee.

During that time, you can also incorporate those representatives joined online in support

of the review with whom also wish to speak, after which questions may be asked of you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening to the committee members.

My name is Laurent Cés.

I am speaking on behalf of the neighbourhood watch that I represent on Haifa Road SW 11

1HF, which is directly behind the premises that we are discussing today.

I am also assisted by two members of the committee that I represent, which is Roberta Adami and

Sonia Pinkes, they are online representing as well, so they may express also some of

their concern, which I thank you as well for allowing us to do this.

I wasn't aware of that, so that's very good.

So today we are here because the same management that caused years of problems as Tequila Mockingbird

has now reopened, operating on the Bad Habits Club.

Same location, same issues, different name.

The core of the problem today isn't that we want to stop a legitimate business being in

operation.

On the contrary, we have said many times that...

My apologies, my speaker went down.

We're not stopping a legitimate business.

We have met Mr. Bass last week and our views have somewhat changed.

However, we still have a few concerns and constraints that we have put together in our

initial application.

So since we made the application, we have met Mr. Bass, and we have also seen a few

of the adjustments that we favour.

We have said many times that we want thriving business around our area.

We are very familiar that we live in a very populated area.

There are many businesses around.

We have somewhat like six to seven businesses that offer alcohol.

And we also have enough licence literally just next door that closes at 11 o 'clock just to clarify as this could be of interest as well.

We just want to be heard because that's the first time we ever had the opportunity to voice our concern.

As I represent around 30 to 40 residents literally affected around the Battersea Rise,

Hafer Road and area around the premises that we're discussing today.

All these local residents are speaking with me or express some of their concern via email

and hence why I've put the application forward of our concerns.

However, it's been seven years that we've documented failures and we still feel that

the same operator as upholds some of the basic licensing's objective.

The evidence, Mr Chair, Mr Chair, apologies, is in your bundle pack and this is what we

feel are documented facts.

Why the rebranding doesn't solve the problem?

We think that Mr Bass has promised us a mature social club during consultation, but then

we discovered legal realities that I've highlighted in the pack.

There is concerns of the website that is being advertised.

We feel that there are loud music until past 11 o 'clock, and we were told that the operator

has promised us more quiet intervention.

We don't believe that that's been the case.

The same management is operating, so therefore we have the same problem as we've had in the

past.

We've highlighted some of the police incidents.

There's been no genuine operation changes.

As I said, we've only had the opportunity to miss Mr. Bass for the first time last week.

We've never had any representation in the past, despite some of our concerns.

We've been in the premises.

We've expressed concern to some of the vigils and members of security where our interest

has been dismissed.

And we also feel that the marketing information that is now advertised, which I've included

in the PAC, contradicts the premises of rule -breaking, anything goes, loud and unapologetic.

The operator has made also, we feel, misleading representation during the very review of this

process.

How can we trust him going forward with future compliance that he has allowed to put in place,

which again we welcome, but we would like to see some of our

condition being also met and

We would like these to be reflected the current evidence of problem continues

We have a police intervention which I've highlighted

Council noise complaints from from many residents that we've also highlighted

RSP noise team has been visited and have been at some

apartments, one of which is Miss, is Roberta Adami,

are multiple site confirmation breaches,

and also what we are very concerned is children's education

being disrupted for sleep deprivation

at the time when it's late.

Even the rebranding we feel, we have photographic evidence

of ongoing licencing condition breaches,

windows and door being left open.

We feel this really affects the noise

and amplifies the noise in the area.

There's no visible compliance with condition PN6 regarding litter and clearing.

One of the issues that we have, and certainly myself as a neighbourhood watch representative,

is there is a law of litter which is created by some of these promises,

mostly from patrons that are coming late at night and vomiting and urinating.

We have CCTV confirmation of that as well.

and the continued late night operation

affecting resident sleep.

The problem hasn't stopped, we feel,

and that's why they have rebranded as a result.

What we're asking, so as I said,

we've met Mr. Bass last week for the first time.

We welcome his additional proposal condition,

which showed genuine engagement, and we welcome that.

However, we need our comprehensive five points plan

implemented alongside this proposal.

Mr. Bass' proposal conditions address communication and accountability, direct phone numbers,

complaint logs, dispersal policy, and annual meetings are good.

These are positive steps that we support.

Our concerns are the following.

Previous failure to listen to our issues.

We think this is obviously welcoming, but we would like to see more whenever we approach

their staff and himself, if he's around.

Disruption to residents work due to disruptive sleep caused by antisocial behaviour, which we get regularly in our street.

It's a popular street, Battersea Rise is very busy.

And we've often seen a lot of people lurking around between the hours 11 and 2 AM in the morning.

Again, we have CCTV footage of that.

Recurrent shouting that affects the residential area.

that generally are from patrons coming out

or just being available around

that stay until two a .m. in the morning.

And then obviously there is enough licence next door

that is now closed at 11 o 'clock,

so we're very pleased about that

because that would obviously affect the area.

And not to mention mental health issues

have been caused by obviously lack of sleep and stress.

Our five points that our core protective conditions

outline in our application is reduce operating hours.

We would like to see Sunday, Thursday from 1030 with a wind down to 11 o 'clock as normal,

midnight Friday, Saturday, pub -style hours that respect residential protection area.

Secondly, noise control, mandatory sound limiting equipment with regular monitoring.

We know that exists.

We would like it to be implemented more on a regular basis.

windows and doors closed during operation.

The premise has a very large window door operating system

that is often open.

I've also included photographic evidence

to prevent noise and escape of crucial

for the sleep deprivation of our local residents.

The management and security, we'd like to see SIA

licenced door supervisors, which we are seeing from ATM,

and these conditions have been met,

so we are very encouraged by that,

and that's been a very positive contribution,

especially during closing time

when problem generally occurs and are more fraudulent.

Monitoring and compliance,

this is one area which we feel we deserve better

by meeting with the owner more regularly

so we can address more of our concerns.

And an immediate review of some of the breaches

that may be addressed that some of the residents often do not wish to be known for because

they want to remain anonymous.

They're too frightened of being named, and that's the reason why I'm representing them

today.

The last one but not least is community engagement, advance notice of events.

We would really welcome this.

And we can litter clearing around the premises.

This is for us a very big concern.

So we would very much welcome more activity around that for responsibility of a community.

I think I've said more or less our five points.

I think I've spoken as well for ten minutes, so I'll stop here, Chair.

Yep.

I was conscious that we had some technical issues,

so I did allow for that time.

Any of your residents or representatives

just want to say anything online,

just because we didn't have the opportunity of the mic.

I don't want anyone to feel they've not had

sufficient opportunity to input.

Yes, Chair, I think one minute.

Speak.

If I could invite the person online to speak.

I'm going to because we are over time, but I'm really conscious that you've you know, this is the Residence Association

So if it's okay

I'd like to give you one minute to just address or pick up anything that miss

That the chair of the Residence Association hasn't mentioned or you'd like to be amplified over to you online

And if you could introduce yourself, please for the record

Hello, good evening everyone. My name is Roberta. I'm one of the residents in the series

Um, yeah, I think, uh, wrong said pretty much everything we wanted to say. There has been an improvement. He mentioned that as well, which were very pleased with since the bars reopened. I'm still very much concerned about the way they advertise themselves, though, because that might attract customers that I'm not really appropriate for an area that's a residential area.

We've got lots of children and my own family has been affected greatly by years of loud music and rowdy customers.

So our sleep has been disturbed and my child's sleep has been disturbed for many years.

So, yeah, I think there has been an improvement.

I'm happy with that, but we still would like that, obviously, to carry on and to be monitored

also over time.

Thank you.

Thank you for that representation.

Okay.

That concludes online.

You're welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting.

Please just ensure you're muted.

Does the subcommittee have any questions at this point?

Thank you very much.

You are a very thorough presentation.

Thank you.

You say that some things have improved.

Could you expand on that?

Sure.

Thank you, Councillor Bertolt.

Yes, so we have definitely during the last month, obviously this is a short period of

time.

We're not obviously at a stage where we've had enough data to satisfy our views and evidence.

But the last month has been visible.

The use of SIA licenced door supervisor has been evidenced.

We've certainly seen a reduced amount of people using the licence.

It's unfortunate for the owner, of course.

However, we are obviously witnessing a substantial amount of noise that is reduced as a result

of that.

But overall, there's been an improvement of what I would call antisocial behaviour that

is less pronounced than it used to be.

We still obviously have people vomiting and urinating.

We can't help that.

That's, you know, one of the areas where we live in.

And we would obviously welcome the owner, the premise owner

to be also responsible for some of the cleaning

around the promise.

I have a question.

Just in regards to, there's several references

made to CCTV in the area.

I've had a look on the Google Maps

and I'm familiar with the area myself.

How are you able to ascertain as the neighbourhood watch

that this is the urinating and the vomit in

is from this particular,

the patrons of this particular establishment.

Thank you, Chad.

That's a very good question.

So most of my CCTV comes from our block,

which oversees the entrance of Aifer Road.

And most of the antisocial behaviour that I'm witnessing

generally happens between 12 and two or three a .m.

in the morning.

So we believe that this is a direct impact

to some of a later activity of opening hours

that generally portrays that antisocial behaviour.

Just for clarity though, it may be general

and not specific to, before, Tequila Mockingbird,

not necessarily their patrons,

but people that are patrons of bars in the local vicinity.

I just wanna be specific, because in my mind,

as if somebody has been in the bar,

why are they not using the facilities

within the bar that they've been in. But I also understand that people are coming because Clapham

Junction basically is Battersea. Very busy area, very metropolitan. People may be coming and then

obviously falling short and doing things they shouldn't be doing because they haven't got

access to the places where we're open. So I just wanted to make sure that we weren't clouding,

that it was a general thing and it may be some of their patrons rather than I know it's their

patrons. I just would like for you to just specify that for me, thank you. Yes, thank you chair. So

So obviously we can't pinpoint specifically,

and we want to be very clear that we're not pointing

at the premise itself.

However, what we can be certain is that the premise itself

has opening hours between midnight and 2 a .m.

in the morning, whereas around there are generally

pub activities that close at 11 o 'clock.

The antisocial behaviour generally tends to happen

after midnight till about 2 a .m.,

which is generally when the premises has been opened

during Friday Saturdays.

Another question for me. You referred to there being litter. Are you able to say what what what the sort of

Yes, right sounds isn't that there's no such thing as a silly question

I don't even know why I'm saying that but what sort of litter we thinking about is it flyers litters?

Is it cigarette boxes litters?

I don't mean to lead you but just to have an idea of the sort of rubbish they're saying is is being derived from this premises

So generally it's consumables. So food

drinks, people are urinating and vomiting,

generally around that time, and cigarettes,

and that can be around there.

You know, we've seen all kinds of activities going on,

but that's the general activity we're seeing.

That's very useful, and I should have actually started

by saying thank you.

Whilst it will have no bearing on our decision,

And we welcome that residents are using the appropriate means to hold people to account and to bring to our attention where there are issues.

That is not to bias any decision, but it's important to ask counsellors who aren't always present,

they're not God, omnipresent, so that residents who are there are able to feed into the process.

So we did, I wouldn't say welcome the application, but were positively that

residents felt that there was a mechanism within Wandsworth for them to have their voices heard.

So I did want to say thank you to the neighbourhood watch for bringing this to our attention.

I will reiterate, it will have no bearing that you've brought it to our attention in how we're going to decide, but would encourage you to continue using such mechanisms.

Hopefully you wouldn't need to, but they're there for the public to use.

One further question from me.

You all sound very, very busy and it's very blessed to have such active residents in the borough.

You've asked for certain conditions to be in for this particular licence.

Do you have similar relationships with other bars along the along that strip?

So just understanding what the relationships are with other proprietors

Thank Thank You chair. It's very good question

I've not mentioned that however, we do have good business relationship with the two

restaurants there are actually adjacent to the premise and on our road, which is the Domino's and

and a restaurant, as well as Amigo,

which is also a licenced premise that offer alcohol beverages.

We have a very good relationship with the owner there.

We know him very well.

He's been engaging with the community for quite a while,

and I know him personally.

OK, that was just more, so just to reassure the applicant,

it wasn't to see who's charms with charms,

but just to understand whether some of the conditions that

were being recommended, whether other people were doing them

I don't know where that sits with the neighbourhood watch,

so I don't want you to think we're ganging up against you.

It was just more for information.

Subcommittee, do we have any further questions now

for the applicant?

No?

I had a point of clarification,

and I don't know if it was, yeah, might be legal.

There was reference made to the windows being open,

and I just wanted to ask, I think the applicant had said

that the windows are open at all times of the day,

And before we hear from the proprietors of the business,

just to understand what the standing is on open windows.

Thank you.

Take your time.

If it helps the committee, I'm happy to just – sorry.

I've just looked at the licence, and you're probably going to say the same thing, Felix,

that there is actually no condition currently on the licence which imposes that on them.

So currently they don't need to keep the windows and doors shut.

Okay, I know you're keen to come in, so I'm going to now invite the licence holders,

legal representatives, Mr. Faulkner to address the subcommittee.

After which, questions may be asked of you, the licence holder, Mr. Bass, in also attendance to answer any questions.

Please introduce yourselves.

You will now have a maximum of ten minutes to address, because we did have the technical issue, I'm happy to extend that.

Just before the applicant comes in, although there's no window condition,

there is a condition that their front lobby doors must be shut when there's regulated entertainment,

except during access and egress, and I'll let Felix approach you about that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that point of clarification.

As I said, it was ten minutes, but in terms of parity and fairness, it will be 11.

to address the subcommittee again.

I'll give you some time now to present your case,

after which questions may be asked of you.

Please introduce yourself, thank you.

Thank you, my name is Felix Faulkner,

I'm from Popples to Now and Solicitas,

I'm representing the applicant, Jonathan Bass,

who's sat next to me.

I just wanna clarify before I start with my speech

about the no windows and doors condition.

Since the Live Music Act came into force in 2012,

that condition is dis -applied on the premises licence,

and Lauren I'm sure is aware of this,

because the licencing authority have advised Laurent of this.

So between the hours of 8 a .m. and 11 p .m.

that condition does not apply.

Sorry.

After 11.

So between 8 o 'clock and 11 o 'clock

you can have every vote.

Yes, so that was granted in the Live Music Act 2012

by Parliament, that applies to every premises

across the country.

So what I'll do is I'll start with my speech,

and then I just want to phrase a few points

that obviously Lauren has started.

Thank you for your time today,

and I will endeavour to keep my submission short

and to the point.

As you will see, my client has submitted

a short bundle of supplementary evidence,

and I'll be grateful if you could have this to hand

during my submissions.

My client has owned and operated

the licenced premises across London since 2015.

He's a personal licence holder

and a well -respected operator of a number of sites

within the London Borough of Wandsworth,

such as Anne Venn Tooting

and Tequila Mockingbird Putney.

All venues operated by my clients

are in close proximity to residents,

similar to the location of the premises

subject to the review today.

All these venues operate successfully

with a strong community relationship with its neighbours.

A full biography of my client's career

can be found at page 24 of the supplementary evidence bundle.

The premises licence at 46 Battersea Rise

has been owned and operated by my client

for the past seven years.

The premises has been licenced since 2004.

Initially, the premises was called Tequila Mockingbird

and operated as a cocktail -led bar with an emphasis on lively atmosphere and dancing.

Due to a change in customer demand, my client refurbished the bar earlier this year and changed the name to Bad Habits Club.

Bad Habits Club is modelled on an American -style bar with a focus on craft beers and competitive entertainment.

The premises also provides food from local operator Patty and Bunk.

The premises has been refurbished to a high standard with a dance floor, DJ booth and downstairs bar being removed.

These have been replaced with significant seating, a table football table, darts board,

pinball machine, pool table, and the instruction of draught beer.

Photographs of the layout of the premises can be seen in the supplementary evidence

bundle page 3 to 9.

The current premises licence has 15 enforceable and strong conditions which currently ensure

the premises upholds the licencing objectives.

These conditions include the requirement to have CCCV throughout the premises, legible

notices reminding customers to remain quiet when leaving, and two SAA door supervisors

on Friday and Saturday nights.

Further, the premises operated with the sound limiting device, which was set by the Environmental

Health Officer at the London Borough of Wandsworth and has been in place since opening seven

years ago.

The change we have made to the premises has attracted a different clientele than before,

with a focus on an older crowd and less groups.

The venue has a more relaxed type of atmosphere with less emphasis on music.

The review brought before you has been brought by Mystic Assist on behalf of the Hayford

Road Neighbourhood Watch.

The application has received additional evidence submitted by Mystic Assist, alongside three

supporting representations.

A map showing the specific location

of all the resident's party to the review

can be seen at page 14 of the supplementary evidence bundle.

My client has never met any of the objectives

before the review was lodged,

nor was he aware of their concerns

or their locality to the premises.

As the members will understand,

the review of the premises licence

is designed as the last resort

when all other avenues have been exhausted.

This review has been submitted

without any prior engagement with my client.

Further, the review was submitted based on concerns

as to a change of name at the premises.

The review does not refer to any evidence

of recent breaches of the licencing objectives.

The review and representations refer

to three specific noise complaints

made to the licencing authority,

dated 18th of May, 2024, 5th of October, 2024,

and 14th of December, 2024.

These complaints are 15 months, 10 months,

and eight months old, respectively.

Further, these complaints were made

when the premises operated as tequila Mockingbird,

with a different style of operation

and attracted a different clientele.

The review documentation refers to a complaint

on the 11th of April, 2025.

On this date, an environmental health officer

attended the premises and asked the premises

to turn the music down, which the premises did immediately.

The Environmental Health Authority confirmed

on the 14th of April that the council

would take no further action.

The review contends that the premises

regularly plays music beyond 2 a .m.

There is no evidence to back up this statement.

As you'll be aware, the Environmental Health Authority,

the licencing committee's lead advisor on noise and nuisance

has not submitted a representation

in support of the review.

The review documentation refers to a police intervention

on the 9th of May, 2025.

On this date, two individuals attempted

to enter the premises, however were refused entry

by the door supervisors, the individuals

have both had too much to drink.

The two individuals then became raucous

and the premises called the police to protect their staff,

existing customers, and to ensure

the licencing objectives were held.

The two individuals never entered the premises.

In calling the police, my client did exactly

what is expected of them as a responsible operator in this situation.

The police, the licencing committee's lead advisor on crime and disorder, have not submitted

a representation in support of the review.

Further, the review documentation makes several additional requests.

The review requests a restriction on opening hours, a resident accessible sound limiter,

and complete revocation.

There is no evidence provided within the review to support these requests or any of the requests

made in the review documentation.

The review also makes reference to a number of antisocial behaviour incidents.

Again, there is no evidence of this, nor any links to our premises.

Most importantly, the application for review has received no representation from the response

any responsible authorities.

The premises has never previously been subject to review before, and it's seven years of

good operation.

The premises at 46 Battersea Rise is licenced for the sale of alcohol Sunday to Thursday

10am until midnight, and Friday and Saturday 10am until 2am.

These hours are the recommended hours within the licencing policy of the London Borough

of Wandsworth for this area.

As it can be seen on page 15 of the supplementary evidence bundle, there are a number of other

licenced premises within the immediate vicinity of 46 Battersea Rides.

The premises at 40 Battersea Rides, currently closed but with an active premises licence,

is licenced until 2am on Friday and Saturday.

Amiga at 56 Battersea Rides, Fiat One at 85 Battersea Rides, Blame Gloria at 89 Battersea

and Arch Street at 3 Northcote Road are all licenced until 2 a .m. on Friday and

Saturday. A number of other premises including the merchants of Battersea, the

Northcote and Northcote Records are licenced until 1 a .m. on Friday

and Saturday. The review documentation contends this location of this premises

is highly residential however this is simply not the case. Battersea Rise is a

busy road linking Clapham Common to Wandsworth and Clapham Junction. Battersea

Rise is serviced by two bus routes 24 hours a day, number 35 and 37, the

timetables of which can be seen on page 20 to 23

of the supplementary evidence bundle.

The crossroads of Battersea Rise and Northcote Road

is a highly commercial area with one of the largest

nightlife populations in the London Borough of Wandsworth.

The premises is nearby a number of residential properties,

in addition to the properties of the Residence Party

to the review.

There is a residential property directly above the premises,

two neighbours either side, above 38 and 42,

one directly behind at 2B Hafer Road,

and flats directly opposite at 49 and 51 Battersea Rise.

Most importantly, none of these residents,

the closest to the premises in question,

have submitted a representation in support of the review

or made any complaint to my client.

Following receipt of the representations,

my client contacted all four residents

and invited them to a residence meeting

at the premises on the 30th of July.

Mr. Casis and Ms. Walker attended in person

and Mr. Dahme attended via FaceTime.

Ms. Davis did not respond.

At the meeting, Mr. Casis and Ms. Walker

were walked around the premises

to show them the refurbishments made through the rebrand.

This was an opportunity for them

to see inside the premises.

As mentioned above, my client has not met any of these residents before.

Any correspondence from the local authority regarding the complaints has not provided

the direct contact details of the individual resident for GDPR reasons.

In the circumstances, my client has not been able to contact the residents directly.

The residents at the meeting confirmed that since the premises operation has changed to

Bad Habit Club eight weeks ago, the premises has not caused a nuisance.

In light of the review and the residents meeting, my client has offered five additional conditions

to be attached to the premises licence.

These conditions can be found at page 2 of the supplementary evidence bundle.

In short, the conditions are a commitment to provide a public telephone number to all

local residents, maintenance of a complaints log, the requirements to take all reasonable

steps to ensure customers do not loiter outside the premises, the operation of a dispersal

policy, a copy of which can be seen at pages 10 to 13 of the supplementary evidence bundle,

and hosting an annual residence meeting.

These conditions evidence my client's commitment

to community engagement going forward

and hope that this commitment will be to the satisfaction

of both the members and the residents.

A direct email address for my client

has also been provided to all residents

party to this review on the 4th of August.

In summary, my client is a well -respected

and responsible operator who has operated

this premises for seven years.

As mentioned above, no responsible authority

has submitted a representation in support of the review,

most importantly the police and environmental health,

the lead advisors on crime and disorder and nuisance.

My client has changed the style of operation at the bar

eight weeks ago, before the review was lodged,

to a US -style bar with a strong focus on craft, beer,

and competitive entertainment.

Since the change, there have been no complaints

from any residents or the responsible authorities

with regards to the new operation.

Based on all the above, it is evident that the premises

of 46 Batsy Rise upholds the licencing objectives,

and with the current and additional measures

and conditions in place, will continue to uphold

the licencing objectives.

My client is committed to community engagement

and welcome a closer working relationship with all neighbours going forward.

I would therefore invite the members to attach the five proposed conditions to the premises

licence and that no further interference with the premises licence is made.

Thank you.

If it's okay if I've got an extra minute, I'd just like to refer to a few extra points.

So obviously in Mr. Kacic's presentation, he referred to there being seven years of

documented failures.

In the evidence that's presented to us as I've run through, there's three noise complaints

that are made in 2024, one police incident in 2025.

There is no evidence in the papers of seven years of documented failures.

Just moving on to anti -semitia behaviour, again, there is no links to the premises.

Mr Karsis explained he has CCTV that covers the entrance to Haifa Road.

That doesn't cover the entrance to the premises.

The premises is round the corner.

There are many nearby premises, obviously, as I've mentioned on page 15 of the bundle,

where end at 2 a .m., as you mentioned before, it is near Clapham Common.

It is a very busy area from a commercial perspective.

People will be walking up and down there.

There is no links to our premises

with regards to vomiting, urination.

Obviously, the door's point finally,

and I've obviously touched on

with regards to the Live Music Act.

It's appreciative that we managed to meet Mr. Casis

and the other residents,

and we want to work towards a better relationship.

From our perspective, it's a shame we've ended up

for a review, but this is where we are.

We will be more than happy to offer

the additional conditions.

I don't see any any concern in us

Committing to some help to keep the front of the prompt property more clear. Obviously if there is

Litter from patty and bono glasses that are off from our premises

We will of course take it into our into account. But again, we are not street cleaner so we can't cover the whole the whole area

Think that is everything for me to say. So thank you very much your time

Thank you, mr. Fulkner does the subcommittee have any questions

Can everyone hear me?

I can't hear myself.

It's a very good thing.

Does the subcommittee have any questions

for the legal representative?

Council, but yeah.

I'm not sure if, yes, I think it probably is for you.

If there is this noise, the only window

seems to be onto the Battersea Rise,

are there no windows at the back?

Okay, thank you.

And what sort of numbers do you have within the business?

I mean, how many customers would you expect on a,

In terms of capacity, we have a condition

which on our licence already,

which limits us to 120 customers.

I mean, John can possibly answer

as to how many we've had over the past eight weeks

we've been open.

Jonathan Bass, owner, operator.

Unfortunately not very many. It's very quiet. 20, 30. Everybody's just seated and the music is kind of like background level at the minute.

Because it's just like a lounge -y type place. The windows aren't open to play music and attract people, it's just because of the weather.

Any further questions?

Councillor Faf, Member Faf.

I just had a question.

At the start, the officer mentioned that the licence is currently in your name, Mr Bass,

and that you've put in a request to change it into a company name where you're direct.

I was just wondering what the reason for that was.

Yeah, that's fine.

As you probably know, sitting on this committee, the majority of premises licences are in the

name of a company.

The company that we've transferred it into is in,

Jonathan is a director, Jonathan is the sole owner

of that company.

There is nothing necessarily untoward.

It should have been done a while ago.

The previous company that Jonathan operated this bar with

under the name of Tequila Mockingbird,

one of the individuals left,

and so Jonathan put it into his own name

while he set the companies up,

and he just hadn't transferred it

into the names of the companies.

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

So one is to do with the litter,

which you kind of touched on.

The Patti and Bond partnership,

Is that takeaway food or is it dine -in only?

Patty and Bun obviously are down the road on Northcote Road.

They deliver to the premises.

Is that correct?

Yes, so we order from, people will order from the Apple,

or order through a phone call, and then Patty and Bun

will deliver the food to the premises.

The premises has no kitchen itself.

It's delivered to the premises, then the idea is

that we throw away the rubbish.

In just thinking about that,

so there could be potential Patty and Bun litter

that comes because it's takeaway food,

even though it's been eaten in,

that somebody could order something and then go.

They could.

If they would do that, I imagine they would probably

just go to Patty and Bun down the road

rather than come to us.

They could do it, and obviously if we see Patty and Bun

wrappers outside our premises, there's two options.

They've taken it from there and walked up,

or they've ordered to our premises.

We will obviously, we're happy to endeavour

to keep that area clean.

Do you wanna?

Thank you.

Mr. Bough?

So the patent fund partnership ends at 10 p .m.

So they close at 10, so we're not serving food all night.

And also, it's not a lot.

Couple of meals a night, and that also only started

from the reed brand, we never sold food prior to that.

And just a general point with regards to litter.

You know, we don't need conditions on the licence

to keep the place looking nice.

So if someone did come outside and drop something,

or drop cigarette butts or whatever,

we would just sweep it anyway,

just as a matter of housekeeping.

It's not something that we are gonna do

sort of to please residents or the wider community.

It's just, to us, that's pretty standard.

You know, if anyone drops a cigarette butt,

we're straight out of there sweeping.

So I don't determine that that is a problem.

Thank you.

And just in terms of cigarette butts,

do you have those black bins on the wall

or something for people to put buttons in or?

Yeah, we do.

Thank you for the clarification.

And then I had just a, what is the competitive entertainment

that's been referred to?

What does that mean, competitive entertainment?

Pool tables, darts, pinball machines, table football.

So it can be seen in the photo.

It's essentially pub -style games.

Sorry, that was your timer.

Is that my timer?

No, it's your timer.

Yes, it's essentially your traditional pub -style games,

which you can see from the photos.

because the premises used to have none of that in,

it essentially had a dance floor and a DJ booth.

They've been removed, we filled it with fixed seating

and those competitive entertainment games,

so darts, pool table, pinball machine table,

football, et cetera.

Okay, that's good, thank you.

Well, not as good, that's, I'm neutral, lovely.

I had a second thing about marketing.

I know some things are said tongue in cheek,

but words carry weight, and I'm just gonna,

where anything goes.

A place for rule -breakers, loud and unapologetic,

open every day till five till eight,

that's quite accurate, but I think the others are,

depending on what side, could be seen as inflammatory

or worrying, so would you just like to just expand on

if there's any meaning or if it's just marketing jargon

as to a place for rule -breakers?

because I don't want them to be breaking any rules

if they are to be inside and not on the streets,

but I'm not about rule breaking,

so it'd just be really good to reassure

what you mean by this kind of language.

I mean, I think you've answered the question there

by saying it is marketing.

I mean, John once put this to me in a meeting a few weeks ago

that we don't believe that Red Bull gives you wings.

It is a marketing ploy.

As I hope that Lauren has mentioned in his statement,

I wouldn't describe the premises over the last eight weeks

as loud and apologetic.

And I hope that Lauren would agree with that in his statement.

He did explain that he believes the premises has been quieter, it's been less busy.

It is a marketing section.

Obviously, we're here for a licencing act.

It has no reference to the objectives, but it, again, it is a marketing ploy.

I would just say the place where rule breakers potentially could be inferred to be potentially

problematic, the others, I would concur that it's marketing, but rule breakers, if there's

urination, littering, and all of the things that have been noted, although we've addressed that they're not specific to this establishment,

would probably cause issue in terms of public nuisance.

I just wanted to, please comment. Yes, please.

Sorry, just on the marketing.

You are right, it is tongue -in -cheek.

We've gone down a new music policy route and we're playing rock music now.

So it kind of goes in with that kind of like rock style thing.

I understand completely what you're saying.

If it's taken by, how can I say, if it's to be read by people that aren't perhaps

are demographic and they just take it at face value, they would maybe think, oh God, they're

encouraging bad behaviour.

Of course, I don't want bad behaviour because it's not good for business.

But you know, to illustrate, we also say we sell killer burgers, but the burgers don't

kill you.

So it's kind of like, you know, it's just that kind of whole voice of, it's a rock grungy type thing.

It's pleasing to say what the burgers have been killed. So it's quite accurate. But there we I'm glad to hear that there's no killers of women around once we're off to having a burger establishment.

One final point for me, and we've established the capacity. Is it quiet because of the time of year, we know that there's lots of people that may go away.

So is it because of, are you able to ascertain whether it's because of the change of target

audience or is it also coinciding with its summer and people have gone on holiday or

staycations?

So there's two things.

So one, the premise is that Tequila Mocamode was very, very busy.

So from 2017 when I opened it, probably till about 2022, was very busy, which is why I

I was really surprised that this has come about now

when I've been pretty much empty for two years.

The whole Tequila Mockingbird thing with the dancing

and the big groups of girls partying,

whatever, has kind of died a death.

The whole of the industry has died.

So we made the decision to change,

go a completely different route,

because obviously everyone who's our competitor

who's doing the same thing,

we can see they're suffering as we are.

So we've gone the opposite route.

Now, it's twofold.

It's quiet because we're new, not a lot of people know about it, but also it's quiet

because we can't really hold loads of people packed in and it doesn't really lend itself

to that anymore.

If you've got a pool table and a table football table and people throwing darts and people

sitting down eating, whereas before I'd have a table that was maybe 60 centimetres wide

with four chairs around it, you might get eight people around it because some will

stand and whatnot. Now you're getting four because they're sitting down. So it's

just the style of the venue. I'm hoping we will get busier. I don't think it's

gonna stay like this because if it does we will close down. But it's not

something that's gonna suddenly happen in September or October when things, you

know, everyone comes back from holiday as you say. Thank you for that. That's very

and there was, as I should have written it down,

because it was one more thing that I wanted to ask.

Yeah, Councillor van der Sar, thank you.

I just had a quick question.

So I think in both of your representation,

you've said that since the rebrand,

that there are door supervisors there from 8 p .m.

Is that correct, and can you just confirm,

like are they there till the last customer

has left the premises slash the area?

Certainly.

We currently have door supervisors

on Friday and Saturday night from 8 p .m.

I'm just double checking, and it is a condition

that we have it from 10 p .m.

And we currently have them from 8 p .m., is that correct?

So it's only on Friday and Saturday nights.

We always have them when we operate

as tequila mockingbirds.

We adhere to our condition.

We don't feel the premises needs them

on Sunday to Thursday.

We don't feel that we don't have the hours for that.

We don't feel there's any necessary requirement

to have them.

But yes, we currently do have them

from 8 p .m. Friday and Saturday.

Oh, what time is that?

Till the last?

Till close, till the last,

till the customers have all left, yes.

My question came back.

Again, it was just around the change of licence and financial viability.

So I haven't had a look at company's house, so please bear with me.

But your old licence, was that under a different business?

Where's the state of that business and the coming over to your new business?

I just ask, is there financial viability if conditions were to be imposed in terms of,

I don't know what those are because we haven't deliberated on them.

but the business is financially able to potentially see those

as what's happened to your last business

and where are we with the new business.

So, just to cut, there's only one licence,

the Tequila Mockingbird licence and Bad Habits licence

are the same licence,

so is that what you're referring to as WhatApp?

Well, it was held by a different company, sir.

So from 2017 when I took over up until the middle of 2024 was holding a company name

and that one company owned eight tequila mockingbirds for me.

Obviously back in the COVID and whatnot we had some financial difficulties.

We ended up doing a restructure.

As Felix said the other director left went and did his own thing.

We then have gone through this process of restructuring and the venues have been put into different company names.

Now for the crossover period, they went into my name while everything was set up.

Obviously, time has slipped by, but I have now done, there's five venues left,

and I've now transferred those five into my new companies.

In terms of financial viability, yeah, I mean, it's tough at the minute.

We're sort of doing what we can in this site.

My other sites are doing well,

and they are supporting this site.

You know, I'll be 100 % honest with you,

when it was Tequila Market Merged,

and things weren't going well,

I was trying to sell it,

I thought about closing it down,

but I've got a personal guarantee on the lease,

so I can't walk away, unfortunately.

So we sort of said, right, okay, well, what can we do?

Yeah, what's working now?

or a few venues, all the pubs are really busy,

things like that, that seems to be

what people are interested in now.

Obviously the venue isn't a pub, doesn't look like a pub,

but so how close can we get to that,

while it's still a bar?

And we've devised this concept,

it's kind of been six months in the making.

And yeah, it's just, this is just sort of like

another roll of the dice as it were,

and hopefully things pick up

and it can start sort of sustaining itself.

Your candour is incredibly appreciated for that, just to give us an overview of where

we're at, because for us to make deliberations and decisions, it's just good to know where

owners sit with finances.

We're not, as a borough, trying to bring anyone into bankruptcy, but equally listening to

concerns of residents.

So thank you for the transparency.

Officer, was there anything you wanted to add on that?

Because I know you wanted to come in.

Thank you.

No, that's fine.

I was just going to give you the same clarification that Jonathan did in terms of the applications.

You've got 50p.

You can't run it, but it's just a matter of time.

It's just a very good thing to have an understanding

of where the business is and the reasons behind the pivot.

Where are we now?

I feel like we've all been talking for some time.

Councillor Burch, will you have anything?

Go back to the picture.

You've got an enormous window,

and I can see when it is hot

and you've got quite a lot of people in there,

you need to have the window open

just for everybody's comfort.

But do you have a time when you will commit to closing the window on a hot day?

And also, can you commit to the volume of the music that you would be having?

I know that's difficult unless we're talking about, you know, so many decibels at the front

door, but when we were told that a neighbour came round and said it's too noisy and it

was immediately turned down a little bit, I mean, that's great. Maybe you need to be

thinking about how noisy the music is going to be so that people don't complain.

Thank you. I'll just come in on the noise point and then I'll let John confirm what

at exactly hour, he does close it.

Obviously, as I mentioned before,

we're allowed to keep it open to 11.

John may close it earlier and he will clarify.

On the noise and decibel level,

we do have a sound limiter that has already been set

by Environmental Health seven years ago,

or even before we moved into the premises.

That has been set by your lead advisor on noise and nuisance.

The level of sound that we have at the moment

and the level of music that we play in the venue

due to the change of operation is quieter.

The residents have accepted that.

The lack of, the style of operation has changed

from Tequila Mockingbird from a more cocktail -led

DJ booth dance floor style of operation.

So again, we welcome the conversations between residents.

The residents all have John's direct contact details.

They obviously have the premises over the road,

but if they feel they don't want to go there,

they have his direct line.

We obviously have provided a direct contact number.

So we hope that there will be no more

residential complaints because of the noise,

has just the operation of the premises doesn't invite itself to louder music and I'll just let John confirm what what hours he does close the

windows at the moment

So at the minute yeah, we would close it at 11 because that's in the rules are but we generally don't keep them open that late

Probably normally when the Sun Goes Down

So, you know in the height of summer maybe 930 10 is when that goes down and we want to change it

just to touch on the

Music level so obviously one thing I did say when we met the residents. It's very hard for us to know

So what the music volume is in the venue?

We then can't tell

Just say oh, it's loud in here. It will be loud in someone's house across the road around the corner

So it it's not something we can do without full cooperation

So where I've had my other venues where we have had noise complaints, you know, partly

And I had another site in Elspeth which is closed

So we've always had the complaints,

met with the EHO, been introduced to the residents.

I've been in people's residences

and we've got walkie talkies saying,

right, turn the music down, turn it down a bit more.

Okay, now we can't hear it.

Turn the bass down a little bit more.

So we will work through,

and we've always found a resolution.

Obviously the issue here is that we haven't

had that opportunity.

So as you say, when someone came and said,

oh, it's too loud, can you turn it down?

that's kind of the first thing anyone's ever heard.

So in order to please them, they've gone and turned it down.

There has, which we just found obviously through the reviews,

there has been a resident, Roberta wrote a review on Google

nine months ago saying problems with the venue,

and we've obviously replied and said,

hi, if you're a resident, please get in contact with us.

but we didn't actually hear anything further.

So it's really hard to know who has an issue

and what the issue is,

because we can't just arbitrarily turn the music down

on the basis that there may be something

until we are told about it.

Thank you.

Vice -Chancellor Lassa.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I was just gonna go on from what Mr. Bass just said,

and I would urge residents to contact the noise team

if they are suffering from any noise nuisance,

but they do need to be a bit open for the officer

to visit their premises and as Mr. Bass says,

measure the noise that's coming from their venue,

from the venue to the resident's home.

Because often being in different rooms

also has a different effect on the noise levels.

I wasn't aware that you actually had a noise limiter,

so apologies.

And if it has been set by an EHO,

I don't have that information,

that perhaps an EHO could go in and maybe reassess.

But again, the residents would have to kind of comply

and allow the officer into their homes.

Thank you.

Mr. Faulkner.

Thank you, sorry, yes, obviously,

you probably won't have any evidence

because the sound limiter, as John tells me,

has been there since 2004.

And obviously, just pointing back to your point,

Councillor Burchall, we obviously were happy

to close the windows as the sun goes down.

We don't want to cause a nuisance,

and we have the noise limiter.

We would ask the committee not to impose

any conditions on those points.

I mean, we've operated for seven years,

we feel successfully without any conditions requiring us that.

There is no environmental health representation

requesting those conditions.

You'll need an advisor on this point.

So we do not feel there's any condition required

to limit the pro -premesis any further.

And I just have one question about your CV.

It says, just for information, a successful application

for new premises licence at the Corinne.

Is that and then now?

Oh, OK.

I haven't, no conflict of interest.

I haven't been, but I'm a student resident.

And I was thinking, I support it.

It changed its name.

So I just wanted to make sure I was on the board with that.

OK, let's go back to our questions here.

Any more questions from the subcommittee

for the legal representative?

No?

Are there any other questions of clarification?

I know to people online and to you, sir, in the room,

we've had a very thorough exchange here.

So I appreciate your patience with us.

Do you have any questions of clarification based

than what was provided by Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Bass.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I do.

I've been retaining myself from some of the comments, and I'm sure my two residents who

are also listening are probably livid by some of the comments that were made.

I mean, I think as I mentioned on my opening statement –

Before you start, I'm just going to be – a moment.

Just to be very specific, because you all have closing remarks, so this is on points

of clarification. So just to be succinct to the clarification points. Thank you.

Agree, Chair. This is purely on the point. So Mr. Bass mentioned strong relationship

with the community. We've never seen this, and this is the reason why we're here today.

Had we not done this, I don't believe that we would have ever had any changes. Also,

you know, why, as the premise change name, what really happened? I mean, we understand

There are financial issues.

We all suffer.

We don't want him to go down.

We just want to have a relationship with the owner

on this.

There are various incidents that police matters.

There's even one that was on the Daily Mail,

if that's any reference to any newspapers that was on the,

I believe it was in 2019 when Mockingbird was very lively

and active.

I mean, again, Mockingbird was very popular.

It has been for the last seven years.

We have made many times complaints that were dismissed.

This is the reason why we're here today.

Thank you, sir.

So just in terms of the clarification, which I think has been addressed, but the points

I just want to ascertain from there was to do with the assertion that there's a strong

relationship.

I think the neighbourhood watch is saying that's only come about in recent times and it's not

been historic.

That's a clarification he would like and the second one was once again on the pivot of I'm not gonna not to disregard it

But the information around the daily mail and so forth you can use that in your closing statement

But it wasn't brought up by the representative

So it's unfair now to bring that information in here

But the pivot of the business because it has been discussed if you could just once again clarify that. Thank you. I

Will just come in on the on the strong relation of the community and I I may have been misheard in that sense

I wanted to state that John has strong relationships

with the community at his other venues.

John does not know these residents

and has never met these residents.

As I explained in my opening remarks,

we have not been made aware of the three noise complaints

by Roberta, which are in the papers,

and we have not been given the contact details

or the addresses of the residents.

So obviously Roberta, as you can see,

has submitted two reviews of the premises

and John has replied and offered to reach out.

We have not received anything.

So hopefully from this point,

it's unfortunate the review has started

to build that community relationship,

but hopefully this will do.

I'm not claiming at all that currently

a strong relationship with the residents

because we've never had any complaints from them.

Just on the, I'll let John come in

on the premises name point,

and just on the daily mail point,

that's not included in the evidence.

Wonderful.

For the clarity, I will thank you for raising it,

Mr. Faulkner, because I had said it,

and I'm glad we're in agreement

because it wasn't part of the bundle yet to be said,

and also it wasn't something you raised

This is a point of clarification for the procedure of this meeting.

It cannot be introduced.

Thank you.

If it's something you wish to say, you can say, but not at this point of the meeting.

Mr. Bass, back over to business and pivots and name changes.

Thank you.

MR.

BASS This was, we did it before they submitted the

review.

You know, we had just, we just started our refurbishment.

and someone walked in and said, here, have this.

And I was like, well, that's amazing.

So we'd already done it, the name was already up.

That's what alerted them to this,

and that's why they were worried,

because they saw, maybe they saw the word club

and thought nightclub as opposed to social club,

and that's what triggered it.

There's not really anything more I can say.

Yeah, I think just, yeah, words carry weight in everything,

And I can imagine that as you said it's been going on for some time wasn't as many complaints

but then we see bad we see habits we see club and

It brings together this whilst it's not a positive experience for you guys. I have to reiterate from a counselor's perspective

It's important that the mechanisms that we have in place for residents and local people are used and it will bear no bearing on our

Deliberation that it was local residents using it

But I do want to just encourage people

Whether in your own local area that if something feels unright that there's mechanisms that we can have your voice heard

Okay, where's my notes?

Was this the right one?

I've got so many now.

Keep me very busy.

I will now invite the attending parties to provide their closing remarks.

You will each have five minutes to provide any summary comments

before we formally conclude the final part of the meeting.

And I invite you to speak in the following order.

Licence holder.

If you wait, and then it will be the applicant.

So, where's my phone?

Five minutes from the licence holder.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I won't need the five minutes.

I will merely just repeat what I ended

my opening remark with.

My client is a well -respected and responsible operator

who has operated this premises for seven years.

No responsible authority has submitted a representation

in support of this review.

Most importantly, the police and environmental health

do lead advisors on crime and noise nuisance.

There have been no complaints since the change

from any residents or the responsible authorities with regards to the new operation.

It is evident that the premises of 46 Battersea Rise upholds the licencing objectives and

with the current and additional measures and conditions put in place, will continue to

do so.

My client is committed to going forward to community engagement and will welcome a closer

relationship with all neighbours.

I therefore invite the members to attach the five proposed conditions to the premises licence

and that no further interference with the premises licence is made.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you, Mr. Faulkner.

Thank you, Mr. Bass.

And now, Mr. Cassis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So clearly we are not agreeing in some of the comments that were said by the legal representation

as well as Mr. Bass.

We feel that the only reason why we are here today is because we've finally been heard.

It's been seven years of misrepresentation.

There's been many instances where police were involved and that has not been reflected.

We've never met Mr. Bass before.

If he does state that he has strong relationship with the community, it's certainly not been

in the Battersea Rise area and the community.

So we don't agree there and we fully believe that this has never been an engagement, regardless

of some of the Google comments that were reflected in the last six weeks or so when the premises

reopened.

I mean, obviously, we don't have enough evidence to believe that there is a strong case that

indicates that the owner is willing to make a lot more representation based on his condition.

However, we do welcome the fact that these conditions show genuine progress.

We don't obviously agree to all of them.

However, we believe that addressing the communication,

the operational protection, and the needs of this condition

working together will help us.

Again, I want to reiterate,

we don't want to have his licence revoked.

We just, we do enjoy the local area.

As I said, there's seven or eight licences that we enjoy.

I've been to many of them.

But we certainly want his proposal plus our five point plan

created that would really bring a comprehensive framework that we believe as a community is

needed together with communication channel and operation safeguards.

We feel that the last seven years we've never been heard, and we certainly feel that this

is the only chance that we have today in order to do so.

And we thank you for allowing us to voice our concern today and hopefully recommend

and what we've discussed.

We are not in favour of 14G and H. However, we would like to have our proposal together

with this five point to create a comprehensive framework today.

Thank you, Chair.

We still have some time.

I don't know if any of your colleagues online.

One minute, Mr. – will come to you – would like to say anything online.

Anybody still there?

Hello.

Hi, it's Roberta Dami again. Yeah, one point is that I didn't cheque the Google accounts,

so I like, but I like the idea to have face -to -face meetings with the owner. One point that was

said by the legal representations that the area is not residential area. That's completely wrong.

There are many children who live in the area. There are lots of families because we've got

excellent schools, primary schools.

So there are lots and lots of children who suffered

as consequence of, also as consequence of these premises.

So yeah, completely not true.

And for seven years, there have been many incidents

where there have been many complaints.

So that also I'd like to clarify.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

So that concludes the closing remarks from the applicant.

Mr. Hultner, was there a point of clarification that you felt necessary to submit?

Thank you.

I just wanted to ask Mr. Cassis, he said he doesn't agree with 14H and G, and I just wanted

to clarify what that referred to.

Yeah, apologies.

Thank you.

Yes.

So these were some of the conditions that have been discussed.

There's an Article 14, and you, from the licencing officer, referring to the points that you

have options to use and the points that I've raised was 14 where you discuss some of the

options that you have and my recommendation was not to encourage, was not in favour of

H and NG.

It's the

option to the committee.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

So it looks like you are not inviting the committee to suspend the licence for a period

of three months or to revoke the licence.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Nice to see someone smiling.

OK, so we've come to the end of the meeting now.

Let me find my actual how we closed the meeting piece

of paper because I've got lots around me.

Oh, the lights in the office are pleased.

Please, interject.

Well, that's OK.

I just wanted to give two points of clarification

before you close the meeting, just

Just based on what was in the representations,

sorry, the information in the review.

I know the residents were talking about

an immediate review that would be triggered

if conditions weren't, you know, agreed, adhered to.

I just want to explain that that's,

unfortunately, that's not how it could work.

So depending on how the licence is, you know,

how it's determined today by the committee,

if you find that they're making noise,

I said this before, but please report that

to the noise team.

Once that report goes to the noise team,

the noise officer has an opportunity to attend.

For us to then take action against that,

the noise officer has to witness a statutory noise

nuisance, which may involve visiting your premises,

coming into your home that night to measure the noise.

Once that happens, the noise officers

have their own legislation.

But because there is a premises licence,

there could also be an effect on breaching

of licencing conditions.

That's where the licencing team would get involved.

But it's not an immediate review.

It would be a stepped approach where we would work with yourselves and the licensee to kind

of continue to build that relationship and in the hope that, you know, the licensee adheres

to those conditions.

And I hope that going forward from here you don't have problems.

Let's put that there.

But I just wanted to say that because you were asking for that, it's not something

that we could legally do because there has to be a process in place.

Okay?

Thank you.

Yeah, just to really be clear on that, the only way you can do it is a review yourselves,

like you have done here.

Obviously, you can't talk about the same things that you've talked about before.

It would have to be brand new stuff, well evidenced.

Okay.

Obviously, if noise officers have investigated, as suggested by the licencing officer, then

And they also have the ability to do a review or indeed prosecute, okay?

And just some further thought for me in terms of nuisance.

You obviously are well established in terms of being a neighbourhood watch board.

Sorry, my language.

You all forgive me, sir.

But do make sure you're engaging with the police safer neighbourhood team for increased

patrols and obviously your local councillors.

The urinating, the vomiting is just unacceptable.

It's unfortunate people do that.

That's not by tripping it to you,

but just in a wider thing here that we,

unless we see not the evidence of it,

because you do see the evidence of it or you smell it,

but we're having those reports, we're able then to lobby

that we have more officers in a certain beat.

So it can be tiresome having to report and record stuff,

but it holds us to account.

It also means that we hold the police to account

in terms of where resources need to be deployed.

So we would encourage you to keep using those mechanisms.

I know that I'm about to close the meeting,

but I think it is incredibly important

that I reiterate that this is a process

and a procedure that is there

for such conversations to be had.

Whilst it may have been quite unpleasant for both sides,

I don't think anyone had wanted to be here

on this evening with us.

I really hope that it is the beginning

of positive relationships.

And the reason I say that is you've said

You're not minded that you agree with some of the things that the extreme extreme measures that could be taken

Which leads me to say that we will take that into consideration when deliberating but let this be the start of a new relationship

So that when things happen we can say there are strong relationships

They're not just for other parts or tooting or putney, but that as he can have that strong relationship with yourself

So I'm hoping that there is something positive that comes out of this procedure

And I kind of say, sorry it's taken so long,

but don't suffer in silence.

Do use the mechanisms and do report to the council.

We are very much a listening council.

So I'd like to say thank you to everybody,

the people online for being here.

We really greatly appreciate your contribution.

This now concludes the final part of the public meeting.

The decision reasons and any legal guidance

given during the subcommittee's discussion

that has informed their decision

will be confirmed in writing,

together with information about any rights of appeal

within five working days. Everyone's free to leave. Members of the Licences

Subcommittee.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Thursday 7 August 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-CommitteeThursday, 7th August 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

2 Declarations of Interests

APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE LICENSING ACT 2003

3 Best One, 169 Putney High Street, London, SW15 1RT (Paper No. 25-283)

4 Tequila Mockingbird (now known as Bad Habits), 46 Battersea Rise, London, SW11 1EE (Paper No. 25-284)

Licensing Sub-Committee
Thursday, 7th August 2025 at 7:00pm