Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 26 February 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Licensing Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 26th February 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Thank you and welcome to this meeting of the Licensing Subcommittee. The first item on
the agenda tonight will be to appoint a chair for the meeting and I'll start by asking
if members of the Licensing Subcommittee would like to nominate one of themselves to take
on that chairing role. Thank you.
Can I nominate Councillor Meerkat?
Thank you.
Thank you and Councillor Tiller is that supported by yourself as well?
Yes, I support that.
Thank you.
In which case that's unanimous and I'll now hand over to Councillor Majorcas who will
be chairing the rest of the meeting.
Thank you.
Thanks Michael and thanks others as well.
First thing is just to say I have two screens.
So if I'm looking this way, it doesn't mean I'm not concentrating or not paying attention.
and that's where I've got my notes.
So I just don't want anyone to think I'm rude.
So yeah, welcome to this meeting
of the Licensing Subcommittee,
which is obviously being held as a remote meeting.
The meeting is being webcast, I understand it.
So if there are any further technical issues,
obviously just bear with us.
As I said, I'm Councillor Mayorkas,
I'm a Councillor in Trinity Ward, Tooting and Ballum.
I'll be chairing the meeting from here on in.
I will now invite everyone else on the call
to introduce themselves in the following order.
So remaining two councillors, then officers,
then applicants, and then any representations as well.
So, Councillor Burchill, if you want to start.
Good evening, everybody.
I'm Councillor Rosemary Burchill.
Hello, I'm Councillor Matthew Tiller.
Thanks. Both officers in no particular order?
Yes hello Guy Bishop here, legal advisor to the subcommittee.
Well Caroline you're very quiet for me.
Can you now?
Slightly better.
Yeah, it's Caroline Sharkey. The licensing manager, I'll be presenting the case.
It was very quiet, Caroline, barely audible.
Broke up at the end as well.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, sorry about that. Just take this off. Yes, it's Caroline Sharkey chair and the licensing
Manager and I'll be presenting the report to you today and answer any points of clarification
from the application. Thank you. Thank you. Michael, we've done you. Yeah, Michael Flauw's
Democratic Services. Thank you and then from the applicant. So Sarah, if you want to go first.
Good evening, I'm Sarah Clover. I'm the Barrister who's been retained on behalf of the applicant
this evening. Thank you. Donna? Good evening. Donna Lockett, agent on behalf of the applicant.
Okay thank you. And then lastly, Robert. Yeah I'm Robert Newby -Walka. I'm from the noise team. I've
made a representation against the application. Thank you. So moving on to agenda items one and
two. Are there any apologies for absence or declarations of interest for any items on the
Moving on, we will now consider the application for a variation of a premises license in respect
of the premises known as Shell, Little Waitrose Battersea, which is located at 326 Queenstown
Road, SW 11 8 NE. And I will now invite licensing manager to introduce the application, please.
Thank you, Chair. I'm mindful that you've read the full report, so I'll just give you
summary and point out some pertinent points that you can consider tonight. So this is
an application which is made by Shell UK Oil Products Ltd, over applied to very unexisting
premises license for Shell Little Waitrose, Battersea, which is located at 326 Queenstown.
The premises chair are in Battersea Park Ward. The variation application applied for is to
update the trading name to Shell Little, Waitrose Battersea, to update the internal layout of the premises,
to increase the sale of alcohol for consumption of the premises up to 24 hours daily,
to remove all the conditions under annex 2 of the current premises licence, which is produced on page 33 of the agenda,
and to replace them with the conditions proposed which are listed on pages 8 and 9 of the agenda.
The applicant chair holds the premises license, as I've stated earlier, to sell alcohol for
consumption of the premises, but this is between the hours of 6am and midday, Sunday to Thursday,
and then between 6am and 2am the following day on Fridays and Saturdays. The license
Order obtained their licence through a transfer application which was submitted in November
last year. The applicant has complied with all the legal requirements for advertising
this application as detailed under paragraph 6 of the report. During the consultation period,
the applicant agreed some conditions with trading standards in relation to prevention
of children from harm as a licensing objective. The applicant also agreed some conditions
with the police in relation to prevention of crime and disorder as a licensing objective.
These are all combined in Appendix A of the report as conditions to the license if the
licensing subcommittee were minded to grant the license and these are listed on pages
ages 8 to 9 of the agenda. The Environmental Health Officer also objected to the application
on the basis of provision of public nuisance being undermined if this application were
to be granted in its current form. This is the only remaining representation tonight
for members to consider. There were no other representations received from other responsible
authority or any other persons. The copies of all the representations have all been forwarded
to the applicant and available for this subcommittee. As I stated earlier, the applicant has proposed
the conditions in appendix A of the report. The licensing subcommittee may modify these
conditions if they consider such steps appropriate after hearing all the evidence tonight and
The options available to the subcommittee tonight are the following which are in relation
to promoting the licensing objectives. That is either to grant the variation as applied
for, modify the conditions that are proposed or reject the application. This is the application
as I understand it, Chair. I'm happy to answer any questions at this stage or any points
clarification. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do any members of the subcommittee
have any questions for Caroline, Matthew or Rosemary?
Not at the moment. Can I hold back there? Yes, of course.
I don't have any for the moment.
Are there any other questions or clarifications on anything that's been stated that anyone
else would like to ask?
No?
Perfect.
So I'll now invite the applicant to address the subcommittee.
you'll have five minutes to speak after which we will field questions if that's okay.
I hadn't been told about a time limit. I will do my very best to keep it within five minutes,
but if I needed a few more I hope you might indulge me. Just want to make sure I don't
leave anything out. So there are four elements, two uncontroversial and two slightly more
controversial to this variation application. The name isn't a problem and I dare say the
plan rearrangement isn't a problem either. So this is really about extending the hours
for alcohol. The police and trading standards are content. Having put in a representation
which triggered the mediation with the premises and the premises are quite happy to agree
the conditions that the police and trading standards wanted and you can see those as
your manager has told you at Appendix A, pages 8 to 9.
There's one quick correction that will be needed to one of those conditions.
If I've only got five minutes, I'm not going to use any of them to talk about that,
if I can come back to that afterwards.
But there is an error in there that we do just need to clarify and do course if that's
all right.
At the minute the premises are trading from 6 till midnight, I think your manager actually
said midday, 6 till midnight, Sunday to Thursday, and 2 o 'clock in the morning, Friday to
to Saturdays. Very important to note, there's been no representation from any local resident,
any member of the public. They are content. These premises have been here under one banner
or another since at least 2008. And I'll come back to that in a moment because that includes
24 -hour opening and third -party deliveries. So those elements have already been in place
for a very significant period of time and still we have no concerns or objections from
local residents and members of the public and that's quite key. The conditions are comprehensive.
There's already 24 -hour late night refreshments, so this principle of people visiting the premises
at any hour of the day or night has been tested and also, as I've indicated, the possibility
of third party deliveries, which has been particularly popular, as you might know, since
the COVID outbreak, that has continued unabated.
And so, again, one of the principles that the Environmental Health Officer is concerned
about will not change as a result of the extension of hours for alcohol and there
still have been no issues or complaints, no record of complaints at these
premises throughout the entirety of the time that it's traded. It was purchased,
it's been there a very long time and you may know that, it was purchased by
Sainsbury's from Shell in 2008. In 2014 Shell sold it to Waitrose and
Michelle bought it back again on the 21st of November of last year and it's always been
24 -7 at this site.
One of the environmental health officers key concerns is that this will act as some kind
of magnet.
That's not the case for various reasons.
First of all, it's not near any kind of hub of the sort of demographic that might be wanting
to top up with alcohol.
Typically you see that in student hubs.
This isn't one.
There's no form, as it were, there's no precedent for people coming and attending
the premises for those sorts of purposes.
And this isn't an attractive outlet for alcohol for those sorts of spontaneous top -up
purposes anyway because the alcohol is not attractively priced for that.
You might know that service station alcohol and Waitrose in particular as a brand is not
associated with cheap alcohol. You wouldn't go there to bulk buy, you would go and find
another off -licence outlet to buy cheap or party alcohol if that's what you wanted to
do. And in any event, if people are wanting to party on, as it were, then third -party
deliveries are a preferred way of doing that anyway rather than setting foot back outside
and going to a garage as one might say. This is a busy transport hub in an urban
area. There are six other outlets within close distance of these premises, again
undermining this idea that it's going to be a magnet. There's another shell at
Balaam 1 .9 miles away, there's a BP just over a mile away and a ZAP just over a
away, Esso just over two miles away, and a BP and a Harvest Spa Riverside a little further
than that. So again, there's lots of choice for those sorts of premises, if that's what
we're talking about, and doubtless dozens more if we start including supermarkets and
more traditional off -licenses. So it's not accepted by any means that this will attract
additional footfall. The purpose is to contribute to what's commonly known in this industry
as the basket of goods and to provide additional convenience to people passing by. If people
pass by at any time of the night in their vehicles, they go for a top -up of fuel, they
pick up a few items as they go, not necessarily for immediate consumption. They might get
some milk, they might get some bread, they might get a bottle of wine, they might get
some beer. You'll have done it yourselves, not necessarily to go home and drink there
and then, they might be on their way somewhere, they might be going to a birthday party, they
be going to visit relatives, all sorts of reasons as to why people do that and if they can't get
everything in one go for their basket of goods the temptation is to go somewhere else for all of it.
So if you think, oh I won't go to that one because I won't be able to get alcohol at this time of
night, I'll go to the next garage and get my fuel, my groceries, my alcohol from there and that's the
Retailer, VJ Balasingam, operates the site,
very experienced retailer.
This is how the shell franchise model works.
VJ operates seven other shell sites,
is a personal license holder themselves,
and never any issues or complaints from local people
or from the regulatory authorities.
It's a mixed area.
You've got some photographs at the back of your agenda.
You may very well know the area anyway,
but there are some indicative photographs
at the back of the agenda pack showing that this is very much a mixed area, retail, commercial
and residential, but all around a transport hub and it is not accepted that the ambient
noise will drop to any significant or notable extent through the later hours of the night
in this particular location, nor do the residents appear to be concerned for themselves that
it would.
the environmental health officer would accept 2 o 'clock as standard throughout every night,
notwithstanding that that exceeds policy. It's not clear why. It's not clear why 2 o 'clock would
be acceptable, but for example, 2 .30 or 3 would not. If one is going to go into the earlier hours,
one needs to be confident that residents are not going to be disturbed, and if the confidence is
there to the hour of 2 a .m. that would appear to answer the point. My final
comments then are in relation to the representation itself. Mr. Nivi Walker
comments on noise surveys carried out across the borough. Well without actually
seeing the more noting which parts of the borough we might be talking about I
would invite you not to give that a tremendous amount of weight. He repeats
on a number of occasions concerns about revellers,
revellers on the street dispersing and smoking outside the premises.
Now that may be a concern that's been transposed across
from other types of application.
It couldn't possibly be pertinent to premises such as these.
So again, I'd invite you to be reassured on that point.
And he comments on a particular client group going to the premises as a magnet.
and I've dealt with that comprehensively. There is no one particular client group, perhaps quintessentially.
Service stations, garages are there for anybody who has a vehicle, and those are many and multifarious.
Final observations then really relate to some of the other considerations that licensing decision makers are entitled to take on board,
and we know that from hope and glory. And for your legal advisor, I'm referring specifically to paragraph 42 in the Court of Appeal,
Lord Justice Toulson, who gives a 360 of all the considerations that a licensing decision
maker would want to take on board.
The first two of those actually are the interests of the license holder and the local economy.
Although those are to be balanced against the needs and interests of people living locally
and working locally, they are very much there, front and center of a licensing decision,
never more so than in these difficult times economically for retailers and those dealing
with businesses of any description.
These are premises that employ people and that need to sustain their business and make
it resilient to all the pressures that businesses and indeed members of the public are facing
in our economy at the moment.
And the final reassurance then is that if there's a problem, you can always review it.
There's no need to say no upfront because if any particular issue arises and gives cause for a
specific concern, then there is an opportunity for anybody, including local residents,
to raise a review and to tackle that forensically rather than having a blanket no at the outset of
application. I hope that wasn't too much over five minutes. Thank you very much. I'll come back to the
correction on the condition whenever you're ready. I was going to say if you want to do that now it
makes sense to me. Do it now. Yeah. Okay, so there are two conditions in there. I think they were
supposed to have been conglomerated together. I think it's condition six which is probably on page
9, we offered, Shell offered two members of staff on duty between 2300 and 5 each day.
The police wanted, and then it was and thereafter, service through the hatch only. The police
wanted service through the hatch from those hours, 2300 hours until 5 o 'clock, and that
was agreed, so there was no need for the two members of staff on duty between, because
it was upgraded as it were to service through the hatch and I think what's happened is that
both of them have ended up on there so I would invite you to strike a line through number nine
because there will only be service through the hatch from 11 o 'clock onwards and that of course
is the safeguard that you're invited to take into consideration. I haven't gone through the
conditions in any detail because of time constraints but you will find in there all
the protections that one would hope to see and obviously the police and trading standards
are content with that.
Thank you. Any immediate questions on that correction from officer's side?
No.
No, no, no.
I was just trying to find where that is, which page it is.
Page 9.
Number 9.
Number 9, yeah.
I don't know if you've got a copy of the original application and the conditions that were submitted, but in it you can track this through. You can see that that condition, which is numbered, well it's sort of condition 6 and it's sort of condition 9 on your page 9. I'm not quite sure which numbering it's supposed to have.
but you can see that it was originally a two -part condition as it were,
with a sort of a thereafter.
I'll look through, look at it whilst what you're talking.
Okay fine, in the meantime then, Councillor Virchow or Tiller, do you have any questions
for the applicant?
No.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Virchow?
No, not at the moment.
Okay, are there any other questions or clarification on anything that's been stated from anyone
else at the meeting? No? Perfect. I will now invite Robert to address the subcommittee.
Similarly, five minutes, but happy to be lenient with that time constraint. So yeah, feel free
to share. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so it perhaps would have been helpful if the applicant had,
if they were going to question my representation to have
raised those questions with me prior to this meeting.
But I'm going to really reiterate what I've said in my representation
because the concern of the noise team is
wherever you go beyond the policy hours,
and policy hours are quite generous in this bowl I believe,
you do open yourself up for increased noise and noise of activity.
how extreme that increase is and what is also taking place there is a different argument.
But if you increase the volume of trade and selling alcohol at a time when very few other premises sell alcohol,
will increase trade to that business.
The applicant has mentioned other premises that they're using as perhaps as a bit of a precedent.
I'm not aware if they've got 24 hour sales or not.
I haven't considered those, they weren't raised to me as a justification for this application.
There aren't very many premises that have 24 hours alcohol sales that I'm aware of.
They will be petrol stations and traditionally they will be petrol stations offering a very
small serving from a forecourt and designed to offer trade to passing business basically.
What we've got here though essentially is a grocery offering, a delivery centre, a hub basically for dispatch,
where they want 24 alcohol sales along with 24 hour grocery sales which they can do because that's not a licensed activity.
They're not offering, this isn't about trade and my concern isn't trade to the local and passing clientele.
My concern is the trade that will be generated for alcohol sales that can be dispatched because these are online sales that we're talking about
delivered by a third party and they will be serving probably a
20 -minute radius around this site
Which is a large market to be selling to and I would contend that that will generate a much higher footfall
to this premises now the premises
It is a busy area, we can say it's a mixed -use area, but they are also
favoured by a residential apartment block which butts against the premises
and overlooks. I think it's five or six storeys so there's a number of residents
in very close proximity. The condition that's been agreed with the police for
the sales after 11 o 'clock to go through the service hatch actually increases the
likelihood of nuisance being caused here because it makes sure that all the noise
outside in the open and that none of this actually none these transactions
take place actually within the premises of the building and the only real way
you can mitigate against noise outside is to limit the amount of activity that
takes place which is why the policy should really be be followed here. I did
offer 2 a .m. as a bit of a compromise I was trying to seek a compromise with the
I do feel that we use midnight and 2 a .m. as the template here, as the policy, because
it's been shown through noise surveys that we've conducted over time that volume levels
drop off, background levels decrease, and so noise becomes more of an issue.
I do concede, though, that this is a busier traffic area than most places in the borough,
and therefore the likelihood that the background level falls before two o 'clock in the week
is probably less. So I'm happy for it to be 2am as a joined up approach across the week,
because I still feel that the background will be still relatively high in the week as well.
But after 2am, you really are still getting into the dead of night.
And that's the reason why the policy is there. And I think the policy should be followed.
Where what we would be allowing here is a distribution centre to operate in all but name,
and a heavy flow of traffic with delivery riders,
which bring their own associated noises and problems
to be operating from this site.
I think the noise team have been reasonable
in accepting this request.
I don't think there are many other premises
that have anything similar.
They would really be an outlier here
if the committee was to grant.
And again, for the applicant,
if this isn't a significant amount of business, there's potential that's going to arise from these
24 -hour sales, then I'm not sure really why 24 -hour sales is being sought. The idea that
they won't buy there, they'll go on to somewhere else, but there are very few places else that they
can get that. So I think policy should be followed here. I think it's reasonable for policy to be
followed. Again the applicant did mention the review process and the fact that no
residents have brought this to the attention. Well it's the opinion of the
noise team. We don't wait for residents to make complaint. We make our own
assessment and it's right that we object on the grounds that we believe there
will be increased noise in the early hours as a result of 24 -hour alcohol
sales. And I don't believe it's really appropriate just to simply wait to see
what happens here and for review to be the fallback position. Otherwise there
really is no point in having a representation by the noise team and no point having a committee
to consider the application. You may as well always just say let's give it and then put
the genie back in the bottle at a later date with the review. So I think it's correct that
policy should be followed here. I'm happy for that, the concession that I've given for
the midweek sales to be a little bit later. But I would hope that the committee would
agree with the noise team on this one. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Do members of the subcommittee have any questions? I have a question,
so I'm going to start.
And I've got a question as well.
Thank you. Thanks, Robert.
My question is, do you have any kind of,
I'm aware that, as you say, it would be an outlier in terms of timing.
Do you have any examples of other similar locations in the borough where the delivery
specifically, you know, the congregating of mopeds and electric bikes have caused a noise
issue?
And secondly, this is kind of more of a for information question, but is there any consideration to interaction with people in the park over the summer?
Obviously, I know a lot of people go there in groups and drink alcohol and hang out by the lake and that kind of thing.
Is it your estimation that they would kind of leave there at some point and stay in the area and that this would then provide a kind of hub or magnet where they could continue drinking etc.
I don't know if you want to take that one first and then we'll come to Councillor Burchall.
Yeah, okay. So I'm less concerned about walking patrons off the street with this application.
In fact, this application was, I felt, was originally stressed as being only for online
sales, particularly in those early hours that they weren't looking to serve to members of
the public, that this was predominantly, in fact, solely be for the collection and delivery
by online orders only so I don't know if that's changed actually but it is the demand of delivery
riders that would be the concern here. I'm not aware that there are any other locations that
have 24 -hour sales, I mean unfortunately that's a question I couldn't give an answer to you off the
top of my head. I'm certainly not aware of any, the noise team will always question and be concerned
over any alcohol sales that go beyond policy because of the drive of activity that that
would bring, particularly where it's an outliner.
We have objected to dark stores in different locations and different sources previously
as well.
I don't think there is anything that currently holds this sort of scale of size.
I think where you'll find other petrol stations that do have 24 -hour sales, they are very,
very small petrol stations that don't have anything more than just a few items
on a shelf and perhaps some hot coffee as refreshments as well. This is a
bigger scale of operation I believe and that's an objection. You have a point
as to the impact of courier riders. It's a bit of an unknown quantity. It's a very
they are in the street, they aren't necessarily tied to a particular property. If you talk to residents in Putney, I'm sure they would be very, very vocal about the state of Putney High Street and delivery riders that are in that area. I can't really give you lists of complaints. But it is an issue that we are aware of is growing and expanding. This is the, you know, the online delivery business is growing and expanding daily, which is why this applicant
is seeking no doubt 24 -hour sales to fit in with that model but it's not a model that really exists
in our borough at the moment and as a noise officer we would always look to say that whenever
you start generating a lot of activity in the early hours of the morning which is after 2am
when you really do get into the dead of night and everything does get quieter even in these busy
central locations on Red Roots and everything else.
You know, I would expect at three o 'clock in the morning,
you've probably got cabbies and, you know,
emergency services maybe passing through there.
But what you're potentially opening up yourself to here
is a lot of delivery riders where this is a location
that could be serving a very large population potentially.
And I think we really should be guarding against that.
And it would be a question that the noise team would always be
raising when only these applications are made concerning
out of hours deliveries.
Thank you. Councillor Burchill.
Thank you very much.
Yes, I would just like to understand what is happening at the moment,
because it's a 24 hour petrol station and it's got a shop attached to it.
So does the shop close at midnight and open again at six o 'clock in the morning?
No. It's 24 -7 for everything other than alcohol.
So I could... OK.
That's the point.
OK.
So you can purchase alcohol till 2am there at the weekend as you could with a large number of venues within the bar?
You could purchase bread at 3 and milk at 4 and tea at 5 and you can have your late night refreshment 24 hours a day, hot coffee and so forth.
People can come in once they've got their fuel and get a basket of goods or get them through the hatch and go away.
the only difference is adding a bottle of alcohol to that basket, that is the whole point.
And the same for third party delivery drivers, they will come 24 -7 and have done since time immemorial.
The swap over was 2008 but Shell was there prior to that as well.
So at the moment the shop is open so anybody can walk in off the
street at the moment so it's not it's not close so there are two members of
staff there at the moment?
That I don't know, they're complying with their conditions.
I don't know what the previous condition in relation to that was.
Maybe the agent knows.
The site is, as Sarah stated, open 24 hours.
They have the option of operating closed door policy if they do not have two members of
staff on duty at that time.
But obviously the condition that we've agreed with the police is that the site will operate
via closed door policy if indeed the application was granted.
Okay thank you.
Any other questions specifically for Robert?
Any other questions or general clarifications?
I have one actually for maybe for Guy. This is maybe appallingly out of date
but I seem to remember that there were some regulations about the sale of
alcohol before certain times in the morning. Is that not the case at all? No.
Sorry chair I can just perhaps answer that actually. The policy I think is for
7 a .m. for off sale they start at 6 so they are slightly ahead of policy here
already the noise team wouldn't have particular concern with the difference
in that hour anyway you know 6 a .m. is there's not a great deal of impact
noise wise difference between 6 a .m. and 7 although you know traditionally
nighttime now would probably end at 7 that's perhaps the reason why those
Bearing in mind it's already open 24x7.
Yeah, the premise is open 24x7.
Who is the premises license holder?
It's the applicant Shell UK Oil Products Limited.
It's a company.
Okay.
Shell always owns its own licenses so that they can have ultimate control over the premises and can make sure that there's consistency of quality of operation in what they're doing.
Otherwise you'd have different mishmash conditions across different shell garages and you don't want that.
Thank you.
Okay, no other questions or clarification. Therefore, I will invite each party to provide
any closing remarks they would like to make. I will first invite those making representations
and then the applicant. So Robert, I don't know if you have anything else you'd like to add as a
I don't think there's much else I need to say. I mean there's an additional concern here if
they see walking customers still as well. I was led to believe that this was purely online sales
that would be being served with this extension. But yeah so that's perhaps my mistake. But again
it's the online sales that would be the biggest risk of causing a nuisance here and I do think
that the policy should be followed. 2am is policy for the barber, there's a reason for
that policy, it is to protect residents from the early hours of noise where it has the
most impact and I do believe it should be followed in this circumstance.
Thank you Robert. Sarah, any closing remarks?
Yeah just a few if I may, this has never been deliveries only applications so I think Mr
be walking might be mistaken that or mixing it up with another one but I'm
baffled because this has never just been a deliveries only application it has
always been an extension as you would expect with a shop that's open 24 -7 why
would one restrict the additional hours to delivery only that wouldn't make any
sense so that that's certainly not the case this 24 -7 principle which we've now
clarified, I hope, has been tested over very many years, like coming up to 15, 16, 17,
18 years, a long, long time. And Mr. Newby -Walker helpfully points out there are a lot of residents
in the locality. Well, all the more to test the principle then, because somebody would say
something if they had experienced difficulties over that time. Somebody would have noticed
people making noise or delivery drivers congregating or doing something.
So it's a rather a rather an own goal that one the more residents there are
the more chance there is that somebody will notice an application that somebody
will have a problem with it that somebody will say something the fact
that they don't is highly indicative that the current operation isn't causing
a problem. Mr. Newby Walker says well there's going to be an increase in trade
and an increase in visitors either personally or through third -party
deliveries. I've explained that. That's highly unlikely. I'm sure Shell would be
delighted. It doesn't happen that way. This is all about insulating from loss
of trade because people cannot get what they expect to get. People get confused
when they are allowed to go in to buy some crisps and a packet of tea and some
nappies or something but they can't pick up a bottle of wine which is there, they're not
allowed to have it, they don't get it, they don't understand that and so they boycott that place
and they go to somewhere else which is what I have indicated. Now Mr. Newby Walker says well that
doesn't happen or nicely, he wouldn't know, those who are experts in trade would know and that's the
closest ones of the premises that I outlined for you earlier, the Sherland
Ballam, the BP SW4 and the ZAP at SW11, either within or just over a mile,
are all 24 -7 and that's available for Mr Newby -Walker to look at on the licensing
register if he wasn't clear about it but again that's a bit of a known goal
because if you have other 24 -7 premises in the close locality and he doesn't know about them,
that tends to suggest they're not causing any problems and nobody's raised any complaints
about them. And in terms of choice, could people go somewhere else if they don't go here? Well,
these others are only a mile down the road. So yes, they obviously have choice as to where they
could go. Third party deliveries, Mr Nibi Walker said, there's no model for that within the borough,
I'd be very surprised. Third party deliveries are a phenomenon in any borough, in any part of the
country and have been highlighted since the pandemic, as I've commented on, and the demand
has not gone away. So people learn the pleasures of receiving a third party delivery and they don't
appeared to have resiled from it. And so those offers are increasingly popular and remain
so for these sorts of premises as with many others. And still, no impact. And that's really
what the licensing regime is all about, impact. Don't agree that the other licensed premises
that have been raised are smaller or in some way a more limited offer than this one. You'd
need some evidence on that from Mr Newby, Walker or elsewhere, and there isn't any.
I don't accept that. People have a choice as to where to go, they're not going to be drawn to
these premises magnet -like. I don't accept this location gets quieter after 2am. You'd want some
careful evidence on that. Taking a look at this area and the photographs that you've got,
Mr Newby Walker says after 2am is the dead of night, not in this location and there any
suggestion that the traffic and the activity would drop significantly, that there would need to be
something clear about that and there isn't. And again, these premises and the other premises in
the locality can continue to take vehicles for fuel and so on right the way through the night,
so that principle has been well and truly tested. He's a little bit concerned about the hatch.
The police wanted it. It was their positive preference, so that's why that has been
introduced and in summary not to put too fine a point on it, the Environmental Health Officer
is catastrophizing and I do maintain that the precedent, the principle for licensing law
is a light touch regime, it's a permissive regulatory regime so the idea that we mustn't
let things fall through the net only to be caught by review, it is the wrong legal principle
and there's plenty of case law on that, but just to pick my two favourites, the first
would be Thwaites and the second would be Hope and Glory. We don't do belt and braces,
we don't do just in case in licensing because of the facility of review, that's what it's
there for, to make decisions based on evidence and at the minute the licensing decision maker,
AKA the licensing subcommittee doesn't have any evidence of what will go wrong.
On the contrary, it has evidence of how it goes right at the minute with the
current 24 -7 and adding a bottle or a can of alcohol to the current basket
will not make any difference, nor to the delivery that people are asking for and
on that basis there's no reason, no evidenced reason, and of course licensing
decisions have to be reasoned to say no and so I very much hope that the
committee will say yes. Thank you. Sorry could I could I comment further there chair because
I'd resist that I'm supposed to get the last word unless it's a point of law.
Personally if the others on the subcommittee are happy I'm happy I don't think it will yeah I'm
happy for you to say something Robert. Yeah I'm sorry I'm just responding to the
points Sarah made really. Through your legal I do object because otherwise we don't have
a closing submission we have tit for tat backwards and forwards Mr Newby Walker comments on me
I comment on him there's a principle here you have a hearing formula we've observed
it if Mr. Aniby Walker now floats that we're in no man's land. Happy to take
advice from Guy Bishop. Thought you might. Yeah so the procedure has been followed
we're in the closing statement and that's it. I'm sorry but you had the
opportunity to explain everything you wanted to explain. Fair enough. Thank you
much. Okay thank you. Go on. That's fine, that's why you're here. So thank you for that. That now
concludes this part of the meeting. The decision reasons and any legal guidance given during our
discussion subsequently that would inform our decision will be confirmed in writing
together with information about any rights of appeal should they be necessary within five
working days. So members of the licensing subcommittee, the Democratic Services Officer,
legal officer, legal advisor will now join a separate confidential meeting to make our decision.
So thank you very much everyone.