Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Wandsworth Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Agenda
February 26, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
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 Mirkaz? 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 Mayorkas, 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. 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, Tuttingham Ballam. 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 Birchall, if you want to start. Good evening, everybody. I'm Councillor Rosemary Birchall. 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 we now? Slightly better. Yeah, it's Caroline Sharkey. It's... The licensing manager, I'll be presenting the case. It was very quiet, Caroline, barely audible. So, I 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. I'm 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 the year. Yeah. Michael Flowers, 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. Perfect. Thank you. And then lastly, Robert? Yeah, I'm Bob Newby-Walkan 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 agenda? Moving on, we will now consider the application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of the premises known as Shell, Little Waitrose Bathsea, which is located at 326 Queenstown Road, SW118NE. 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 the 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 Limited, who have applied to vary an existing premises licence 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 licence, as I've stated earlier, to sell alcohol for consumption of the premises, but this is between the hours of 6 a.m. and midday, Sunday to Thursday, and then between 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. the following day, on Fridays and Saturdays. The licence 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 licence, if the licensing subcommittee were minded to grant the licence, and these are listed on pages 8 to 9 of the agenda. The Environmental Health Officer also objected to the application on the basis of prevention of prevention of public nuisance being undermined if this application were to be granted in its current form. And 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 or application. This is the application, as I understand it, Chair. I'm happy to answer any questions at this stage or any points of 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. Councillor Tiller? I don't have any for the moment. Perfect. 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 OK. 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. I just want to make sure I don't leave anything out. I'm sure you can be arranged. Thank you, Chair. 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 in due course, if that's all right. At the minute, the premises are trading from six till midnight. I think your manager actually said midday. Six till midnight, Sunday to Thursday, and two o'clock in the morning, Fridays 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 Shell 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 officer's 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-license 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 Balham, 1.9 miles away. There's a BP just over a mile away and a ZAP just over a mile away. So, 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 might 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 nature of the problem. And that is why the application is so important. The retailer, Vijay Balasingham, operates the site, a very experienced retailer. This is how the Shell franchise model works. Vijay 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. So, 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. Neby 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 tremendous amount of weight. He repeats on a number of occasions concerns about revelers, revelers 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. And the first two of those, actually, are the interests of the license holder and the local economy. So, 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 centre 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 up front, 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 the 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 nine. We offered, Shell offered, two members of staff on duty between 2,300 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, 2,300 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 they will only be serviced through the hatch from 11 o'clock onwards. And that, of course, is another 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 further comments on that. I was just trying to find where that is, which page it is. Page nine. Page nine. Number nine. Number nine, 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 six and it's sort of condition nine on your page nine. I mean, 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 once, but what you're talking. Okay, fine. In the meantime, then, Councillor Birchall or Tiller, do you have any questions for the applicant? No. Okay, thank you. Councillor Birchall? 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 bar, 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, 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-hour 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-hour 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 a 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. It is a – we can say it's a mixed-use area, but they are also neighbours 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 is outside in the open, and that none of this actually – none of 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 followed here. I did offer 2am as a bit of a compromise. I was trying to seek a compromise with the applicant. I do feel that we use midnight and 2am 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 2 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 for delivery riders, which bring their own associated noises and problems to be operating from this site. I think the noise team would be unreasonable 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 is an insignificant amount of business that's been potential that's going to arise from these 24-hour sales, then I'm not sure really why 24-hour sales is being sought. And 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 full-pack position. Otherwise, there really is no point in having a representation by the noise team and no point in 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, if that's OK. I'm going to abuse the question. Yeah, and I've got a question as well. Thank you. Off to 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 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. I mean, 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 virtual. Yeah, OK. 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 dominantly, 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, you know, the drive of activity that that would bring, particularly where it's an outline. And we have objected to dark stores in different locations, in 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. Your other point as to the impact of courier riders, it's a bit of an unknown quantity. It's a very difficult complaint to register because they are in the street and 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 that, 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 2 a.m., 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 3 o'clock in the morning, you've probably got cabbies and, you know, emergency services may be 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 any of these applications are made concerning the out-of-hours deliveries. Thank you. Councillor Birchall? 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 6 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 to 2am there at the weekend as you could with a large number of venues within the bar. But 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. And 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. And 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 close. So there are two members of staff there at the moment? In the night? 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? No? Any other questions or general clarifications? I have one, actually, maybe for Guy. This may be 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. Okay. 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 for the difference between 6 a.m. and 7, although, you know, traditionally, night-time hour would probably end at 7. That's perhaps the reason why those things are there. Bearing in mind it's already open 24-7. Yeah. Yeah, the premise is open 24-7, yeah. Who is the premises licence holder? It's the applicant, Shell UK Oil Products Limited. It's a company. Okay. And Shell always owns its own licences so that they can have ultimate control over the premises and can make sure that there is 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 of 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 final thought. Well, I don't think there's much else I need to say. I mean, there's an additional concern here. If there's these walk-in 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. So, 2 a.m. is policy for the borough. 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 a deliveries-only application. So, I think Mr. Newby Walker might be mistaking 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'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 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. And the fact that they don't is highly indicative, that the current operation isn't causing a problem. Now, 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. Well, nicely, he wouldn't know. Those who are experts in trade would know. And that's the purpose of the application. It's about not losing trade. At least three out of six and the three closest ones of the premises that I outlined for you earlier. The Shell in Ballam, the BP at 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. The third-party deliveries, Mr. Newby 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 appear 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. I 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 that this location gets quieter after 2 a.m. 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 2 a.m. is the dead of night, not in this location. And 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, a.k.a. 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 evidence to reason, and of course, licensing decisions have to be reasoned, to say no. And so, I very much hope that the subcommittee will say yes. Thank you. Sorry, could I comment further there, Chair? 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 not just responding to the points Sarah made, really. Chair, through your legal, I do object, because otherwise we don't have a closing submission. We have tip for tap, 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. Newby Walker now flouts 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. That's it. I'm sorry, but you had the opportunity to explain everything you wanted to explain. Fair enough. Thank you very much. No, OK. Thank you, Guy. 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 and Legal Officer and Legal Advisor will now join a separate confidential meeting to make our decision. So thank you very much, everyone. And thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Transcript
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 Mirkaz? 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 Mayorkas, 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. 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, Tuttingham Ballam. 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 Birchall, if you want to start. Good evening, everybody. I'm Councillor Rosemary Birchall. 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 we now? Slightly better. Yeah, it's Caroline Sharkey. It's... The licensing manager, I'll be presenting the case. It was very quiet, Caroline, barely audible. So, I 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. I'm 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 the year. Yeah. Michael Flowers, 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. Perfect. Thank you. And then lastly, Robert? Yeah, I'm Bob Newby-Walkan 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 agenda? Moving on, we will now consider the application for a variation of a premises licence in respect of the premises known as Shell, Little Waitrose Bathsea, which is located at 326 Queenstown Road, SW118NE. 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 the 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 Limited, who have applied to vary an existing premises licence 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 licence, as I've stated earlier, to sell alcohol for consumption of the premises, but this is between the hours of 6 a.m. and midday, Sunday to Thursday, and then between 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. the following day, on Fridays and Saturdays. The licence 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 licence, if the licensing subcommittee were minded to grant the licence, and these are listed on pages 8 to 9 of the agenda. The Environmental Health Officer also objected to the application on the basis of prevention of prevention of public nuisance being undermined if this application were to be granted in its current form. And 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 or application. This is the application, as I understand it, Chair. I'm happy to answer any questions at this stage or any points of 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. Councillor Tiller? I don't have any for the moment. Perfect. 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 OK. 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. I just want to make sure I don't leave anything out. I'm sure you can be arranged. Thank you, Chair. 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 in due course, if that's all right. At the minute, the premises are trading from six till midnight. I think your manager actually said midday. Six till midnight, Sunday to Thursday, and two o'clock in the morning, Fridays 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 Shell 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 officer's 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-license 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 Balham, 1.9 miles away. There's a BP just over a mile away and a ZAP just over a mile away. So, 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 might 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 nature of the problem. And that is why the application is so important. The retailer, Vijay Balasingham, operates the site, a very experienced retailer. This is how the Shell franchise model works. Vijay 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. So, 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. Neby 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 tremendous amount of weight. He repeats on a number of occasions concerns about revelers, revelers 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. And the first two of those, actually, are the interests of the license holder and the local economy. So, 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 centre 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 up front, 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 the 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 nine. We offered, Shell offered, two members of staff on duty between 2,300 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, 2,300 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 they will only be serviced through the hatch from 11 o'clock onwards. And that, of course, is another 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 further comments on that. I was just trying to find where that is, which page it is. Page nine. Page nine. Number nine. Number nine, 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 six and it's sort of condition nine on your page nine. I mean, 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 once, but what you're talking. Okay, fine. In the meantime, then, Councillor Birchall or Tiller, do you have any questions for the applicant? No. Okay, thank you. Councillor Birchall? 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 bar, 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, 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-hour 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-hour 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 a 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. It is a – we can say it's a mixed-use area, but they are also neighbours 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 is outside in the open, and that none of this actually – none of 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 followed here. I did offer 2am as a bit of a compromise. I was trying to seek a compromise with the applicant. I do feel that we use midnight and 2am 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 2 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 for delivery riders, which bring their own associated noises and problems to be operating from this site. I think the noise team would be unreasonable 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 is an insignificant amount of business that's been potential that's going to arise from these 24-hour sales, then I'm not sure really why 24-hour sales is being sought. And 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 full-pack position. Otherwise, there really is no point in having a representation by the noise team and no point in 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, if that's OK. I'm going to abuse the question. Yeah, and I've got a question as well. Thank you. Off to 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 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. I mean, 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 virtual. Yeah, OK. 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 dominantly, 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, you know, the drive of activity that that would bring, particularly where it's an outline. And we have objected to dark stores in different locations, in 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. Your other point as to the impact of courier riders, it's a bit of an unknown quantity. It's a very difficult complaint to register because they are in the street and 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 that, 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 2 a.m., 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 3 o'clock in the morning, you've probably got cabbies and, you know, emergency services may be 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 any of these applications are made concerning the out-of-hours deliveries. Thank you. Councillor Birchall? 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 6 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 to 2am there at the weekend as you could with a large number of venues within the bar. But 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. And 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. And 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 close. So there are two members of staff there at the moment? In the night? 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? No? Any other questions or general clarifications? I have one, actually, maybe for Guy. This may be 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. Okay. 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 for the difference between 6 a.m. and 7, although, you know, traditionally, night-time hour would probably end at 7. That's perhaps the reason why those things are there. Bearing in mind it's already open 24-7. Yeah. Yeah, the premise is open 24-7, yeah. Who is the premises licence holder? It's the applicant, Shell UK Oil Products Limited. It's a company. Okay. And Shell always owns its own licences so that they can have ultimate control over the premises and can make sure that there is 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 of 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 final thought. Well, I don't think there's much else I need to say. I mean, there's an additional concern here. If there's these walk-in 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. So, 2 a.m. is policy for the borough. 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 a deliveries-only application. So, I think Mr. Newby Walker might be mistaking 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'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 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. And the fact that they don't is highly indicative, that the current operation isn't causing a problem. Now, 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. Well, nicely, he wouldn't know. Those who are experts in trade would know. And that's the purpose of the application. It's about not losing trade. At least three out of six and the three closest ones of the premises that I outlined for you earlier. The Shell in Ballam, the BP at 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. The third-party deliveries, Mr. Newby 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 appear 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. I 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 that this location gets quieter after 2 a.m. 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 2 a.m. is the dead of night, not in this location. And 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, a.k.a. 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 evidence to reason, and of course, licensing decisions have to be reasoned, to say no. And so, I very much hope that the subcommittee will say yes. Thank you. Sorry, could I comment further there, Chair? 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 not just responding to the points Sarah made, really. Chair, through your legal, I do object, because otherwise we don't have a closing submission. We have tip for tap, 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. Newby Walker now flouts 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. That's it. I'm sorry, but you had the opportunity to explain everything you wanted to explain. Fair enough. Thank you very much. No, OK. Thank you, Guy. 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 and Legal Officer and Legal Advisor will now join a separate confidential meeting to make our decision. So thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.
Summary
The Licensing Sub-Committee decided to grant Shell UK Oil Products Limited's application to vary the premises licence for Shell Little Waitrose Battersea at 326 Queenstown Road. The variation will allow the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises for 24 hours each day, subject to a number of conditions.
Sale of Alcohol
Shell UK Oil Products Limited applied to vary the existing licence for Shell Little Waitrose Battersea to allow the shop to sell alcohol for 24 hours a day. The shop already had a licence to sell alcohol from 6am to midnight from Sunday to Thursday and until 2am on Fridays and Saturdays. The variation to the licence would allow the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises for 24 hours each day.
Representing the applicant, Barrister Sarah Clover argued that the Shell Little Waitrose Battersea has been operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week since at least 2008, and that it has been offering third-party deliveries since the COVID-19 pandemic. She stated that these premises have been here under one banner or another since at least 2008. And ... that includes 24-hour opening and third-party deliveries.
She made the case that, during this time, there have been no complaints about noise or antisocial behaviour from residents in the area. Ms Clover argued that because the shop is already open 24 hours a day, adding alcohol to the items customers can purchase will not increase footfall or noise nuisance. She pointed out that there are already a number of other petrol stations in the area that operate 24 hours a day, stating that the Shell in [Balham](https://www.google.com/maps/search/Shell+Balham+Wandsworth/), the BP at SW4 and the ZAP at SW11, either within or just over a mile, are all 24-7.
The application was opposed by Bob Newby-Walkan from the Wandsworth Council noise team. Mr Newby-Walker argued that the council's policy on licensing hours is based on the fact that ambient noise levels fall in the early hours of the morning, meaning that noise nuisance from licensed premises is likely to have more impact after 2am. He suggested that 2am should be the cut-off point for the sale of alcohol because after 2am you really are still getting into the dead of night and that's the reason why the policy is there.
He argued that noise surveys carried out across the borough consistently indicate that ambient noise levels fall around midnight during the week and around 2am at the weekend,
and that residents can tolerate an element of noise disturbance in the earlier part of the night when ambient noise levels are high but find it increasingly intolerable as ambient levels fall.
He made the case that allowing the Shell Little Waitrose Battersea to sell alcohol 24 hours a day would effectively make the shop a distribution centre
for alcohol, and that this would increase noise from delivery drivers, particularly in the early hours of the morning when you really do get into the dead of night.
He stated that 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 followed here.
The committee decided to grant the variation to the licence subject to the condition that the shop operate a 'closed door' policy between the hours of 11pm and 5am, with all sales being made through the shop's night hatch. This condition was originally suggested by the Metropolitan Police. The applicant accepted the condition, arguing that the police wanted it. It was their positive preference.
The noise team expressed concern that this condition would actually increase noise nuisance by forcing customers outside, but the committee decided that this condition would be sufficient to mitigate any potential noise nuisance.
Attendees
Documents
- Agenda frontsheet 26th-Feb-2025 19.00 Licensing Sub-Committee agenda
- Public reports pack 26th-Feb-2025 19.00 Licensing Sub-Committee reports pack
- 25-72 Report other
- 25-72 Redacted Bundle other
- Decision Notice - Shell Little Waitrose 26th-Feb-2025 19.00 Licensing Sub-Committee
- Decision Notice - Shell Little Waitrose other