Wandsworth Council has voted to impose new restrictions on late-night venues in Putney — based on the support of just 20 people, and a report that vastly inflated the number of businesses affected.
At a Licensing Committee meeting this week, councillors approved a new Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) that will make it much harder to open or extend a licence for any hot food or drink service between 11pm and 5am along Putney High Street.
The aim: reduce alcohol-related noise, litter, and antisocial behaviour after dark. But as several councillors pointed out, the council’s own evidence was both thin and misleading.
“We’re being asked to sign off on a borough-wide licensing policy because of feedback from just a few dozen residents,” said Cllr Justin, referring to the 51 total respondents who commented. “This process was not good enough.”
The numbers that don’t add up
The consultation — run over 12 weeks this spring — drew just 27 responses about Putney. Of those:
- 20 supported the proposed restrictions
- 4 opposed
- 3 were neutral or had no view
That’s it. Yet that limited feedback is now the basis for a planning framework that significantly raises the bar for new late-night businesses.
Worse still was the data used to justify the policy. The council’s official report repeatedly claimed that Putney has “the highest concentration of licensed premises in the borough” — 191 in total.
But dig beneath the surface, and there are obvious flaws.
- Only 68 of those 191 premises are actually located on Putney High Street
- Many of the 68 — including Waitrose, WHSmith, Le Lotus nail salon and health food stores — do not trade at night, do not serve alcohol, or are irrelevant to the concerns around noise and antisocial behaviour
- In reality, the number of late-night, high-risk premises is likely fewer than a dozen
What the policy actually does
The new CIP creates a presumption of refusal for any new venue in Putney seeking a late-night refreshment licence (11pm–5am). That means kebab shops, fried chicken outlets, dessert cafés or bars wanting to stay open late will have to prove that they won’t contribute to public nuisance, noise and litter, antisocial behaviour or crime or public safety concerns.
Existing venues are unaffected, unless they apply to extend their licence — but the bar has been raised for any new entrant.
Meeting debate: missing strategy, missing voices
The vote passed, but not without warning signs.
Several councillors, including Cllr Pridham, questioned whether the policy aligned with Wandsworth’s 2023 Night Time Strategy, which had set out to support a “diverse, vibrant and safe” evening economy.
“We haven’t heard from the businesses this will affect,” he said. “There’s no evidence of joined-up strategy, and this risks being a policy based on frustration, not planning.”
Indeed, business consultation was almost entirely absent. The only formal objection came from Positively Putney BID, which warned the rules could “push new operators elsewhere” and “stifle diversity.”
Officers admitted the data was drawn primarily from resident submissions and that most businesses were not consulted directly. Nonetheless, they insisted the new policy simply gives the council more discretion and tools to refuse harmful applications.
Residents have long raised concerns about the High Street after dark — with noise, fights, food waste, and alcohol-related ambulance callouts concentrated around Putney Station.
“It’s a nightmare after midnight,” said one consultation respondent. “Every morning the pavement is covered in vomit, food and broken glass.”
Police and ambulance data supports that — showing a clear spike in callouts between 11pm and 1am on weekends. But critics say the solution should be targeted enforcement, not blanket restrictions based on inflated numbers.
Where this leaves Putney
Putney’s new licensing rules are now in force. Any business applying to operate late into the night will face far greater scrutiny — and will have to present detailed operational plans to manage safety and public impact.
But the gap between the data and the decision has left a sour taste for some.
It’s not that residents don’t have a point. It’s that the council’s response may well be out of proportion.
What do you think?
Should stronger controls be introduced — even if only 20 people backed them?
Or is the council cracking down on problems without fully understanding them?
Comment below or email news@putney.news
