Comments

• I think it's great that St. Margarets has shops to be proud of...although I'm getting fed up at the repeat number of similar ones e.g. hair dressers, coffee shops and now off licences (especially when other stores have applied to sell alcohol). Can't we have a traditional bakery in the village where we go in, purchase freshly made bread or delicious cakes at resonable prices then leave...not going there for coffee!?

  Robyn on 2010-11-12 08:47:33 +0000

• Sadly, our being "fed up" with the number of alcohol outlets is not a legitimate licensing concern. The 'market will decide' whether there is or is not a demand. If a Change of Use was required (as it was when Chase Buchanan fancied taking over the former Koblers), then there 'might' be grounds. As it is, it's difficult to argue that another off licence will infringe any of the licensing grounds for objection, as it's hard to say that we have any kind of alcohol problem her in St Margarets that's ascribable to the number of local outlets competing to sell. I write this as someone who would much prefer another use for the shop, but unless the police object, I suspect it will be approved.

  David bertram on 2010-11-12 10:21:49 +0000

• Perhaps someone who knows about these things could offer up a valid licensing issue here for others to borrow?

  Perhaps something around the hours being excessive, etc?

  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2010-11-12 12:09:37 +0000

• fully agree with the previous comments. What St Margarets needs is a good bakers shop.

  McCreddie M (Mac) on 2010-11-12 17:19:36 +0000

• We already have teenagers congregating out side shops that are open late hours having an off licence near an alleyway as this one is, will only encourage more anti-social behaviour and that is the last thing our community needs.

  We need a fishmongers or a bakery.

  Lets keep St Margarets a community place which we can all be proud of.

  .Sheila on 2010-11-13 23:52:08 +0000

• Hello all,

  I share the disappointment expressed already regarding the proposed use of this retail outlet as an off-licence.

  As mentioned above, there have been a number of recent successful applications for licences and it is unlikely that this application will be treated any differently. Therefore I shall be objecting on the basis that this is a discount off-licence. I would like to ask the moderator how (s)he knows that this will be a discount retailer? The notice in the shop window refers only to an off-licence and I cannot find any information about this company on the Web.

  In an interview this week, Steve Lewis, the CEO of Majestic, says that selling alcohol at discounted prices is "irresponsible". www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-15/majestic-wine-chief-says-retailers-should-cut-down-on-cheap-drink-deals.html

  A discount retailer will make alcohol more accessible to children and promote irresponsible drinking. Richmond LA's own Licensing Policy refers to enabling "vulnerable people resist substance misuse" (p3 of link) www.richmond.gov.uk/licensing_policy_-_19-11-09.pdf

  A discount retailer selling single units of alcohol, combined with the location adjacent to an alleyway will cause an increase in litter and encourage groups to congregate in and around the alley way, as mentioned already.

  Eventhough we cannot directly object based on a "public need" argument, I think the point can still be used. Given the number of retail outlets in the vicinity selling alcohol, any new retailer solely selling alcohol is likely to have to advertise heavily to attract custom from outside the immediate area in order to make the business commercially viable. This is likely to increase traffic on Crown Road. Given the parking restrictions directly outside the shop (08.30-18.30 Mon-Sat) this increase in traffic, combined with the usual deliveries for the shop is likely to cause significant public inconvenience.

  I would be happy to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

  fionn on 2010-11-17 22:55:46 +0000

• Further to the above, I have spoken to one of the current licence holders who tells me that there is a Paradise Wines in Isleworth who offer discount wines beer and cider. I think the notice on the door at 14 Crown Road should give more information I cannot understand the name posted ao cannot check if this is the same as the Paradise Wines in Isleworth. I have spoken to several licence holders who all cannot understand what another off licence could bring to the area. It was pointed out to me that nearly all potential customers of Paradise Wines would have to walk past another off licence. Why would you walk past one off licence to go to another. We have speciality wines available from The Good Wine Shop, oddbins and yellow wedge and to some degree Tesco. So Paradise Wines cannot say that their range of wines will tempt us, it can only be price. I have also been told by one of the non-specialist off licences that we currently have that they will not allow Paradise Wines to undercut them on price - good for the local drinkers but not so good for St Margarets. I am also told that Nike News, Looking Video and The newsagents near the Crown pub have all recently been granted licences so we now have:

  The Good Wine Shop Oddbins Tesco Broadway Wines Yellow wedge cheese Looking Video Nike News The other newsagents all selling alcohol - what possible reason could Paradise Wines have for wanting to add another name to the list. Perhaps Paradise Wines could confirm that they do not intend to offer cut price alcohol and have a minimum price per unit of alcohol.

  Rose on 2010-11-18 13:08:09 +0000

• I fear that we are no nearer finding a legal, planning-based reason to prevent the application succeeding. Even if (if) it is a discount off-licence, there is no law against discounting and the law/the planning system will not predicate its verdict on the price of the goods sold. Indeed, Tesco discounts wine and beer frequently. Nor need being a discounter per. se. increase the risk of misuse by underage persons - though perhaps we could ask that a condition of the licence should be taht all staff are properly trained in refusing underage sales and that Trading Standards do early and regular 'stings'? Rose has "spoken to several licence holders who all cannot understand what another off licence could bring to the area." With all due respect, they would say that, wouldn't they?!

  It is not the function of the planning system, outside the Use Classes, to determine the exact make-up of shops in an area. It is for residents to do that through their power of patronage. Some loacl residents might think the Good wine Shop and oddbins expensivbe and welcome a source of affordable wine? Only time will tell.

  David bertram on 2010-11-18 14:48:38 +0000

• What is a valid objection to a planning application?

  tinyurl.com/28mahjf

  Ed on 2010-11-19 21:29:57 +0000

• A haberdashers, a brilliant butchers, nice Delis, and now possibly a fishmongers or a bakers? I definitely (heart) St Margarets. Fingers crossed the discount wine merchant doesn't get their way.

  Shirley on 2010-11-19 21:53:25 +0000

• Following Ed's link we find, among the list of things that cannot be taken into account:

  "We cannot take into account matters which are sometimes raised but are not normally planning considerations such as:

  *The impact of...competition between firms *Personal morals or views about the applicant"

  In any event, this is not a planning application but a licensing application. The original post lists those 4 things which alone may be taken into account.

  David bertram on 2010-11-20 17:46:14 +0000

• David said that 'It is not the function of the planning system, outside the Use Classes, to determine the exact make-up of shops in an area. It is for residents to do that through their power of patronage'.

  But don't residents have a say beforehand? Yes, but unfortunately our say has to be linked to one or more of the following:-

  1. Prevention of crime and disorder
  2. Public safety
  3. Prevention of public nuisance 4, Protection of children from harm

  But that's not practical or fair because if we use these categories against a new off-license then the same arguments must apply to the current off-licences as well as the pubs.

  Instead the representation needs to relate to the 'number' of alcohol-selling premises in St Margarets rather than in the setting up of this particular off-license. The point is that the situation with regard to the four categories above is currently manageable (as far as we know). But the more alcohol-selling premises we have in St Margarets, the less manageable the situation will become i.e. the more alcohol-related incidents will occur, whether they be visible on the streets or invisible (and therefore unmeasurable) behind closed doors.

  Surely as residents we are in the best position to know what our community needs (and doesn't need) in the way of services/shops. We shouldn't have to wait for an unwanted business to fail in order to have our way. And when it fails, what's to stop another off-license setting up in its place?

  We (and in particular the government) seem to forget that alcohol is just a socially acceptable drug which happens to be the main contributor to the problems covered by those four categories mentioned above.

  If the council won't listen to the residents can we boycott the setting up of the off license somehow (legally) e.g. posters, flyers, signatures?

  jmh on 2010-12-04 02:06:46 +0000

• That list of four things can't successfully be used to argue against a single licensing application because a counter argument would be that we already have 5 pubs (if you include the Crown and the Ailsa Tavern) and several licensed shops which are able to operate here without affecting those four things (apparently).

  Perhaps we should look at the situation more generally. Yes, we might be able to manage the alcohol situation currently (the part of it that is visible on the streets anyway!) but it will become more difficult to manage, the more alcohol-selling outlets there are. It's a numbers game. What is the limit at which those four things become an issue? What if every property on Crown Road was an off license? Would those four things be considered an issue then?

  What we need is access to crime rate figures in St Margarets from the police. We then need to correlate the figures with the arrival of each new alcohol-selling premises. If we can show a link between the increase in the number of alcohol selling premises and an increase in crime rate then we have a valid argument based on those four things.

  Otherwise, seeing as the residents of St Margarets don't seem to have a say on the shops that they have on their high street it's going to be difficult to keep unwanted shops out. Why shouldn't we be able to take into account the personal morals of a community if those morals are held by the majority ?

  jmh on 2010-12-04 22:43:46 +0000

• JMH suggests that "the more alcohol-selling premises we have in St Margarets, the less manageable the situation will become". Why does that follow? Isn't it at least equally likely that the same amount of alcohol will be sold but that each outlet will sell proportionately less?

  Met Police data

  data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/crime-rates-metropolitan-police-area-ward

  shows there have been 77 crimes in our ward in the last 24 months. That's 3 a month. Of the 77, 5 were for criminal damage and 5 for assault. It hardly suggests an alcohol-related crime wave.

  The planning system tends to assume innocent until proven guilty. Councillors are unlikely to opine that this shop will become the straw that breaks the camel's back (has anyone lobbied them, by the way?)

  A boycott or local campaign, however, is certainly a way of the market expressing its view and might well drive the shop out of business. It's also possible taht we are already well-supplied with booze shops and taht either this - or another - will close as a result of decreased patronage in an overall broadly static market for alcohol.

  www.portmangroup.org.uk/assets/documents/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Per%20Capita%20Alcohol%20Consumption.pdf

  David bertram on 2010-12-07 16:57:44 +0000

• Apparently (as I'm sure many knew) the licence was granted but the lady in question is reportedly no longer interested in opening, owing to severe problems with the landlord. She can, I was told choose to either hand/sell? the licence to him or to return it - in which case new permission would be needed for off-sales at this location.

  David bertram on 2011-05-31 15:47:21 +0000

Add a comment