The Licensing Committee of Wandsworth Council met on 8 July 2025 and voted to approve a new cumulative impact assessment (CIA) for Tooting Broadway, Clapham Junction, and Putney High Street. The committee also voted to approve amendments to the licensing committee standing orders and procedural rules.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

The Licensing Committee considered a report by the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services and the Executive Director of Finance on introducing a CIA under Section 5A of the Licensing Act 2003. Caroline Sharkey, Licensing Manager, presented the report, which recommended the approval of a proposed CIA for Tooting Broadway, Clapham Junction and Putney High Street.

A CIA allows the council to restrict the number of new licences in areas where there is evidence that the number of licensed premises is negatively impacting the four licensing objectives¹. The report noted that the Licensing Committee had previously agreed that consultation should revolve around the proposal that there was sufficient evidence to support introducing a cumulative impact policy in Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction for off-licences only, and in Putney High Street for late night refreshment premises only.

The consultation, which ran from 10 March to 8 June, included statutory interested parties, responsible authorities, solicitors, trade associations, ward councillors, local MPs, residents' associations and other key stakeholders. The council received 50 responses online and one via email.

The consultation results showed:

• Tooting Broadway: 24% agreed with a special policy for off-licences, 14% disagreed, and 52% had no view.
• Clapham Junction: 32% agreed with a special policy for off-licences, 10% disagreed, and 38% had no view.
• Putney High Street: 74% agreed with a special policy for late night refreshment premises, 14% disagreed, and 12% had no view.

Ms Sharkey noted that the Metropolitan Police were in full support of the proposed policies for Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction, stating that these areas are busy and can become flashpoints.

Some councillors raised concerns about the low response rate to the consultation. Councillor Will Sweet said:

I think the response numbers are rather disappointing. I think as a matter of principle, I don't support the council making changes on the basis of 50 responses which are really going to have an impact on the way licensed premises operate in the borough.

Ms Sharkey responded that, in her experience, these were good numbers, and that the council had used every possible platform to engage with the public. She also clarified that a CIA does not stop anyone from applying for a licence, but it does make it more difficult to get a licence approved.

Councillor Sweet remained concerned that the low response rate suggested that the evidence for the policy was not as strong as the committee had previously thought. Councillor Mark Justin echoed Councillor Sweet's concerns, stating that quoting the responses back as percentages gave them undue weight.

Other councillors, including Councillor Katrina Ffrench, Chair of the Licensing Committee, noted that the representations from the police were significant and that the committee had a responsibility to respond to the issues highlighted.

Councillor Tom Pridham raised concerns about the threshold for refusing applications, stating that it would be very difficult for an applicant to prove that there would be no negative impact. Guy Bishop, legal advisor to the subcommittee, clarified that the licensing subcommittee would have the ability to overreach the special policy and that it was not a guillotine.

Councillor Sweet raised concerns about the response from the Positively Putney BID², which stated that they were disappointed not to have been consulted earlier in the process and that they did not agree with the narrative presented in the report. Ms Sharkey responded that the initial data gathering was done through various data sources, and that the BID was consulted as part of the consultation process. She also reiterated that the CIA would not affect existing licence holders.

Councillor Guy Humphries suggested that the council had a hard job of explaining to the public what the CIA actually means and what it doesn't mean. He said that it was important to make it clear that the CIA is a tool and that it does not automatically mean anything.

Councillor Rosemary Birchall agreed with the points made and said that it was depressing that there weren't more people responding to the consultation. She said that she understood that the CIA was just another tool in the council's armoury to make sure that they can make the right decisions in the area.

Councillor Justin asked what protection a premises would have to carry on from its previous licence if it changed hands or went dark and then reopened. Ms Sharkey clarified that transfers of licences are not affected, but that new applications would come within the threshold.

Mr Bishop added that landlords have 42 days to apply to transfer a licence to another party and that one of the options for refusing an application under the CIA would be where there has been a licence there before.

Councillor Ffrench suggested that it would be useful to review how the council involves business stakeholders in future consultations.

Mr Bishop noted that a CIA can be considered at any time and that the council can ask to come back and review it and do a new policy and put it in place, even within the three years.

Councillor Ffrench then moved to a vote, and the recommendations were approved and passed.

Amendments to Standing Orders and Procedural Rules

The committee then considered a report by the Chief Executive on proposed amendments to the Licensing Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee Standing Orders and Procedure Rules. Michael Flowers, Democratic Service Officer, presented the report, explaining that the standing orders and procedures had not been reviewed for some time and that the proposed amendments were intended to reflect existing practices, lessons learned and changing methods.

Mr Flowers highlighted a proposed new addition to add a timeframe in which for the last material to be submitted as supplementary, with a 12 noon deadline the day before a hearing. He said that anything after that would not be accepted unless it's entirely agreed by the committee.

Councillor Ethan Brooks asked whether the committee's refusal to consider new information could be used against the council later as part of an appeal. Mr Bishop responded that it could be, but that the idea was to encourage people to get all their stuff in early so that everybody has a chance to have a fair hearing.

Mr Flowers added that the times they were referring to where this has been a big problem were cases where there was about a 70-page supplementary document submitted at the last minute.

Councillor Jessica Lee asked whether an applicant could get an adjournment if they brought in a lot of papers after the deadline had passed. Mr Flowers responded that it would be a case-by-case basis, but that it wouldn't prohibit anyone from submitting something.

Councillor Pridham expressed concern with remote hearings, stating that they did not provide as much of an opportunity for good quality scrutiny of the case. Mr Flowers responded that applicants always have the right to request an in-person meeting and that he would want to work with the opposition speaker and the chair to find a balance.

Councillor Humphries said that there might be some applicants who might not appreciate the significance of remote hearings and the impact it will have on the weight and screening that's given to their case.

Mr Flowers reassured Councillor Humphries that he had put together an etiquette guide for people attending remote meetings.

Councillor Denise Paul said that courts and other industries are using online meetings and that she didn't see how it should pose a problem.

Councillor Sana Jafri said that she preferred face-to-face meetings and asked for reassurance that complex cases would have face-to-face interaction. Mr Bishop reassured her that they do speak to licensing officers very regularly and are aware well in advance if there's one that's of particular note.

Councillor Birchall said that she preferred to be in person because of the feel of the room and that it is easier when the councillors are sitting next to each other.

Councillor Ffrench then moved to a vote, and the recommendations were approved.