Opening Times

 Monday to Thursday from 11:00 hours to 00:00 hours (Midnight)

Friday to Saturday from 11:00 hours to 00:30 hours

Sunday from 11:00 hours to 23:00hrs.

The Sub-Committee considered what was reasonable and proportionate for the promotion of the licensing objectives the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder.

Paragraph 9.42 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance under S182 of the Licensing Act 2003 says, “Licensing authorities are best placed to determine what actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in their areas. All licensing determinations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. They should consider any representations or objections that have been received from responsible authorities or other persons, and representations made by the applicant or premises user as the case may be.

The Sub-Committee had carefully considered all the evidence before them including the oral representations at the meeting from the Applicants, the Licensing Authority, and the Metropolitan Police.

The Sub-Committee considered evidence of issues relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder arising from the neighbouring premises at Arch 411. Whilst those issues in themselves, were not a reason for the decision reached regarding the application now before the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee had to be satisfied that they could trust the Applicant to uphold the licensing objectives, and that necessitated the Sub-Committee being satisfied on the balance of probability that there was no connection between the Applicant’s management and the management of the premises at Arch 411.

The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s agreement to reduce the hours to 11:00hrs. The Sub-Committee noted representation from Mr Puckza on behalf of the Applicant, that he was an experienced DPS previously in Westminster, and that they would be selling gourmet food, sound limiters would be installed, they were willing to amend the number of people allowed inside and immediately outside the premises, and they would stop serving food at 10:00hrs with 1 hour from then for patrons to disperse.

 The Sub-Committee considered Ms Whiskey’s responses to questions as the Applicant, that she was connected to the business which had operated next door at Arch 411, and that she did work for the previous owner.

The Sub-Committee considered Ms Whiskey’s representation that both she and Mr Puckza were venturing embarking on their own venture separate from the business which had operated next door at Arch 411. Although the Sub-Committee also considered representation by Ms Whiskey that the present business would be operated in a way consistent with the licensing objectives, and that they wanted to work with the residents and the Responsible Authorities, the Sub-Committee were not convinced that Ms Whiskey could be said to be without connection to the management of the business which had operated next door at Arch 411.

Whilst each decision by a Licensing Sub-Committee on each set of premises has to be considered on its own merits, the Sub-Committee were mindful that the neighbouring premises had had a history of issues relating to public nuisance and crime and disorder, and the Sub-Committee were not satisfied that Ms Bianca Whiskey, the Applicant, was without any link to the issues, which had arisen at the neighbouring premises, being the director of the company operating those other premises, as well as having been bar manager at those neighbouring premises. 

In the circumstances of this case, the Sub-Committee could not ignore the track record of Ms Whiskey as part of the management of the business which had operated at Arch 411, in terms of demonstration of trustworthiness in promoting the licensing objectives.  

The Sub-Committee were therefore not satisfied with the assurances of compliance with the licensing objectives offered by Ms Whiskey or her colleague, Mr Puckza, nor were the Sub-Committee assured by the reduction in hours offered, since the Sub-Committee still had to be satisfied that the Applicant could be trusted to promote the licensing objectives.

In the circumstances, the Sub-Committee could not trust the Applicant to promote the licensing objectives.

Therefore, Members made a unanimous to refuse the application.

Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the application for a New Premises Licence for Arch 410 Haven Mews, St Pauls Way, London E3 4AG be REFUSED