Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024

Purpose:

Content: Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to determine an application for variation of a premises licence under section 34 of the Licensing Act 2003     PREMISES: Isleworth Service Station, 403-405 Twickenham Rod, Isleworth TW7 7ES   APPLICANT: Motor Fuel Limited     TAKE NOTICE THAT ON 23 September 2024 following a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub Committee (the “Licensing Panel” or “Panel”),   HOUNSLOW COUNCIL, as the Licensing Authority for the Premises RESOLVED that:   the application to vary the Premises Licence for Isleworth Service Station, 403-405 Twickenham Rod, Isleworth TW7 7ES was GRANTED, subject to the conditions and modifications stated below.     REASONS:   1.             The Panel convened to determine an application for the variation of a Premises Licence for Isleworth Service Station, 403-405 Twickenham Rod, Isleworth TW7 7ES (“the Premises”) under the Licensing Act 2003.   2.             The application sought to extend the hours for the supply of alcohol and add an additional licensable activity as follows:   • Supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday 24/7   • Late-night refreshment (indoors & outdoors): Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00   • The opening hours of the premises: Monday to Sunday 24/7   3.             The application included proposed conditions on the licence, which are set out in Section M of the application shown at Appendix A.   4.             The Premises currently hold a Premises Licence. A copy of the licence is shown at Appendix B.   5.             The Premises is situated in an area of mainly residential properties and some commercial.   6.             The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:   o   Written representations made by all the parties o   The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the Licensing Objectives o   The guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 o   Hounslow Council’s licensing policy o   The Human Rights Act 1998   7.             As part of the consultation process the authority received three objections from other persons, concerned with the impact the granting of the application could have on nearby residents.  Copies of the representations are attached as Appendix C.    8.             There was no representation from the Police and/or other responsible authorities.   9.             During the Licensing Panel hearing the facts giving rise to the application for the grant of a Premises Licence were set out by the Licensing Officer and were agreed by the Applicant.   10.          The Applicant’s solicitor attended the Panel hearing along with a Mr John Mann who looks after the Premises Licence. One of the objectors was also in attendance.  At the start of the Panel hearing, the Chair decided and announced that the Applicant and the objector could have as much time to address the Panel as they needed rather than limiting them to the usual five minutes of talking time each.   Submissions by the Applicant:   11.          The solicitor for the Applicant explained that his client, Motor Fuel Limited own 700 service stations that run 24 hours.  They recently acquired 330 Morrisons petrol stations, bringing the total to over 1,000 service stations.  They are very experienced, successfully running their business for many years.   12.          The solicitor explained that application was to vary the current Premises Licence, namely to extend the hours for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises from 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Friday to 24/7 seven days a week. In addition, they would like the current licence to be varied so that the premises could offer late night refreshments which will mainly be hot drinks and may offer some hot food.   13.          The solicitor emphasised that the current licence already had robust conditions that were drawn up by him in conjunction with the police. Conditions such as training and Challenge 25 were already in place.  The solicitor assured the Panel that the premises would not be selling any high strength alcoholic drinks and spirits (including miniatures).  The Applicant would not sell single cans and they would not sell cheap drinks.  As such, the premises would be very restricted in comparisons to other off-licences in the area.    14.          The solicitor went on to explain that the premises would operate a lock up system after certain hours at night for staff safety.  This would mean that customers would not be able to enter the premises but rather make their purchase at the night payment counter.   15.          The premises already had litter picking arrangement in place, whereby litter is picked by a member of staff twice a day.   16.          The solicitor emphasised that given the Applicant’s experience in running service stations that are open 24 hours a day, he believed his client would responsibly run the premises in question 24/7.   17.          The solicitor drew to the Panel’s attention that the police and or other responsible authorities had no objections to the application to vary the licence.  The premises had been trading successfully and there were no complaints against or relating to the premises.   18.          Regarding the car wash issue, the solicitor reminded the Panel that it was not a subject matter of his client’s application to vary and that the grant of this application did not extend to the car wash as they would not extend the current hours. The solicitor assured the Panel that he had spoken to the objector before coming to the Panel hearing room and exchanged contact details.  The solicitor assured the Panel that he would raise the car wash issue with his client’s Head office so that they could address the alleged noise generated by the car wash and would liaise with the objector directly.   19.          Regarding the objector’s concern that the premises was in a residential area, the solicitor explained that many of their service stations were in residential areas and so his client was experienced and knew how to operate in residential areas. The solicitor reminded the Panel that Isleworth Service Station had been trading in the same area for many years without any complaints. Furthermore, the Police were consulted, and they had not objected to the application to extend the hours and so this meant that they do not have any concern.   20.          In terms of car parking, the solicitor stated that there were no cars queuing and parking at night and so no noise as such.   21.          As for late night refreshment, the solicitor submitted to the Panel that this was unlikely to cause noise nuisance and/or ASB because it would be just a hot cup of coffee/tea and/or a sandwich – and it would not be like a fast-food chain The solicitor indicated that it was unlikely that the premises would sell hot food and if they did it would be very little/minor.   22.          In relation to vermin, the solicitor submitted that it had nothing to do with the licence.   23.          The solicitor reiterated that there had been no issues with the licence previously.  There was an incident which an objector referred to in their submissions but that was nothing to do with the premises.   24.          During questions to the Applicant, Councillor Asim acknowledged that the current licence was updated in 2020 in terms of conditions and that there were no representations from the police against the application to vary the licence.   25.          Councillor Lal also acknowledged that the solicitor for the Applicant addressed the issues relating to the car wash and litter picking and indicated that it seemed to him that a compromise had been reached and that the car wash noise issue would be escalated to the Applicant’s Head Office.   26.          The Chair asked the Applicant to confirm if the premises would have any seating areas with chairs for customers to eat their refreshments. The solicitor confirmed that the premises did not have seating facilities and that the late-night refreshments would be just take away.   27.          The Chair queried if there was another service station nearby.  The solicitor for the Applicant said he was not sure but most likely the nearest one was in Putney, and this was his client’s first 24/7 service station in Hounslow.   28.          The Chair also asked if the Applicant responded to the objectors to which the solicitor responded that they had no direct communication with the objectors and their first conversation was with the objector outside before coming to the Panel hearing room.   29.          During question time, the objector raised with the Applicant that the noise from the car wash started early in Covid time and that an officer from the Council came and heard the noise from the car wash. She also stated that it was the shutter of the car wash that made the noise which was very loud and, as the car wash is used continuously, the noise was constant.   30.          The objector suggested that the hours for the car wash should be reduced to 08:00am to 20:00pm to which the solicitor for the Applicant stated the car wash was not a subject matter of the application to vary. The Applicant confirmed the car wash hours were till 23:00pm.   31.          During question time, the solicitor explained to the Panel that application was drafted on the basis that it would be a 24-hour licence and that all the conditions would remain the same. The additional measures which one would expect to see for a 24-hour licence were also in included in the conditions.   32.          The objector referred to an incident in January 2024 involving two gangs and the police during question time, but the solicitor stated that he did not have details of it but if the incident was at the petrol station it would be in the incident diary.   33.          The objector put to the solicitor for the Applicant that the local police regard the area as high risk, and that the Applicant had not given any consideration to it. In response the solicitor reminded the Panel that the police had not made any representations objecting to this application.   34.          Regarding late night refreshments, the objector asked how many staff the premises would have on duty between 23:00pm and 05:00am. The solicitor responded that condition 19 on the licence stated that if there was one member of staff present then the doors would be locked, and people would use the night payment counter for safety reasons.   35.          In response to the objector’s question of how the premises would serve indoor late-night refreshment if the door was locked, the solicitor confirmed that only if there was sufficient staff on duty, then customers could buy late-night refreshments indoors, but it would still be for takeaway only.   36.          In relation to litter picking, the objector asked if the premises would extend the litter picks to the evening, but the solicitor stated that the premises already had litter picks twice a day and that his client considered that to be sufficient.  Furthermore, it would not be reasonable for a worker to pick litter late at night as that might compromise their safety particularly if it was only one member of staff on duty.  The solicitor however indicated that his client could consider if one of the litter picks could be in the evening.   Objector’s submissions:   37.          The objector submitted to the Panel that the proposed extension in hours for supply of alcohol and late-night refreshment would increase ASB and noise nuisance. The objector expressed concerns that she could frequently hear noise created by customers parking up on the adjacent road and that they also created litter. The objector was worried that granting the variation to the licence would enable off-site consumption of alcohol.  There was already a 24 hour off licence in a nearby small parade of shops and so there was no need for the service station to be 24 hours.  The increased hours would cause sleep disturbance and should be a public safety concern.   38.          In response to Councillor Asim’s question asking if the noise disturbance was regular, the objector stated that it was irregular now but in summer months she could hear the noise, more especially when out in the garden.  The objector confirmed that it was the customers of the service station that made noise and was responsible for the litter and that they also played their radios/music very loud.   Summing up:   39.          The objector did not have anything more to add in summing up.   40.          In summing up the solicitor for the Applicant reminded the Panel that government guidance allows for sale of alcohol for 24 hours if the premise are open 24 hours. The forecourt of the service station was regularly cleaned and litter picking was being done twice a day.  If the Panel was minded to refuse the application, there had to be good reasons for refusing or reducing the hours applied for. The solicitor submitted that in his view there were no good reasons as to why the application should be refused and that a fear of what might happen was not a good reason.   41.          Furthermore, the solicitor stated that if the application were granted and it was subsequently breached then the licence could be reviewed, and it could then potentially be suspended or revoked.  The solicitor submitted that none of the 700 licences which the Applicant held had been reviewed for breaches, nor suspended and/or revoked.   42.          In relation to customers playing loud radios/music, it is difficult for the premises to control that.  The Applicant could however put up signage to remind customers to keep the noise down because of nearby residents.    43.          The solicitor went on to submit that based on evidence, namely the one incident in January 2024 involving the police, the Panel should not refuse the application.  In any event, the police were not in attendance to confirm the exact details of what happened at that incident and that there was no evidence and/or information available before the Panel for it to be considered properly.      44.          The solicitor assured the Panel that the Applicant would deal with the car wash issue even though this was not relevant to the application to vary.   Statutory Guidance:   45.          The Panel considered the Statutory Guidance which states:   “2.1          Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve the local Community Safety Partnership (CSP).”   46.          Furthermore, the Statutory Guidance states the following:   “Public Nuisance 2.15      The 2003 Act enables licensing authorities and responsible authorities, through representations, to consider what constitutes public nuisance and what is appropriate to prevent it in terms of conditions attached to specific premises licences and club premises certificates. It is therefore important that in considering the promotion of this licensing objective, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on the effect of the licensable activities at the specific premises on persons living and working (including those carrying on business) in the area around the premises which may be disproportionate and unreasonable. The issues will mainly concern noise nuisance, light pollution, noxious smells and litter. ……..   2.16      Public nuisance is given a statutory meaning in many pieces of legislation. It is however not narrowly defined in the 2003 Act and retains its broad common law meaning. It may include in appropriate circumstances the reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of other persons living and working in the area of the licensed premises. Public nuisance may also arise as a result of the adverse effects of artificial light, dust, odour and insects or where its effect is prejudicial to health. …….   2.19      Where applications have given rise to representations, any appropriate conditions should normally focus on the most sensitive periods. For example, the most sensitive period for people being disturbed by unreasonably loud music is at night and into the early morning when residents in adjacent properties may be attempting to go to sleep or are sleeping. This is why there is still a need for a licence for performances of live music between 11 pm and 8 am. In certain circumstances, conditions relating to noise emanating from the premises may also be appropriate to address any disturbance anticipated as customers enter and leave.” ……             2.21      Beyond the immediate area surrounding the premises, these are matters for the personal responsibility of individuals under the law. An individual who engages in anti-social behaviour is accountable in their own right. However, it would be perfectly reasonable for a licensing authority to impose a condition, following relevant representations, that requires the licence holder or club to place signs at the exits from the building encouraging patrons to be quiet until they leave the area, or that, if they wish to smoke, to do so at designated places on the premises instead of outside, and to respect the rights of people living nearby to a peaceful night.   The Council’s Licensing Policy 2020-2025:   47.          The Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2020-2025 (“the Policy”) states the following:   “54. Each of the four licensing objectives are of equal importance and therefore each needs to be considered with equal weight.   55. The Council expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put forward measures aimed at promoting the licensing objectives.   LP2 The Four Licensing Objectives   1.    Prevention of Crime and Disorder Whether the proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to levels of crime and disorder in the locality. 2.    Public Safety Whether the necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken, the management procedures put in place and the relevant certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept safe both within and in close proximity to the premises.   3.    Prevention of Public Nuisance Whether the applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from the characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance occurring.   4.    Protection of Children form Harm Whether the applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close proximity to the premises.”   Decision:   48.          Having taken all the written and verbal representations into account, the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Licensing Policy, by majority the Panel were satisfied that the Applicant would comply with the licensing objectives.   49.          Therefore, the Licensing Panel by a majority vote decided to GRANT the Application, in respect of the following:   • Supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises: Monday to Sunday 24//7   • Late-night refreshment (indoors & outdoors): Monday to Sunday 23:00 to 05:00   • The opening hours of the premises: Monday to Sunday 24/7   50.          The Panel was of the view that there was insufficient evidence to persuade them that the grant of variation to the Premises Licence would lead to an increase in noise and/or compromise public safety.    51.          Overall, the Panel was of the view that any existing problems in the area would not get any worse if the premises were granted the increased hours for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and or late-night refreshments. The Panel took on board the Applicant’s submissions that the existing conditions should remain the same and that they were adequate.   52.          The Panel would like to adopt all the conditions as proposed by the Applicant.   53.          The Panel would like to take up the Applicant’s offer to put up a signage for customers to keep noise down, including playing music/radio.   54.           Panel would encourage the applicant to work with the objector in relation to resolving the problems with the car wash. This was not a licence condition.  The Panel was satisfied that the existing litter picking arrangement could remain the same and the Applicant assess if one litter pick should be moved to the evening.   55.          The Panel noted that there were no representations from the Police and/or other responsible authorities objecting to the application to vary.   56.          The Panel noted the guidance and noted the representations from the local resident (objector) in relation to the car wash.  The Panel would like to encourage the Applicant to address the issues relating to the car wash and work with the objector to resolve this.   57.          Whilst the Panel members were sympathetic with the objectors regarding the possibility of increased noise, there was no evidence to say the existing problems were because of the premises.  Furthermore, there was no direct evidence that confirmed that it would get worse if the premises were granted a variation of the Licence.    58.          The Panel noted that ultimately it was for a licence holder to ensure they were operating in compliance with their licence and to propose measures to promote the licensing objectives and tackle any issues.   59.          The Panel would like to remind all parties that a breach of the licence including the conditions set out above could result in a review of the conditions and even a revocation of the Premises Licence.   Right to Appeal   60.          Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set out in schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.