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.