Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest, identified in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine: whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are also reminded to declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it is the Members’ responsibility to identify any interests and also update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of an interest, you are advised to seek advice prior the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services.

There were no declarations of interests.

There were no declerations of interest.

The rules of proceedure were noted.

The rules of proceedure were noted.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 11^th & 27^th October 2022.

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record held on the 11^th and 27^th October 2022.

The Licensing Objectives

In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:

·       The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;

·       Public Safety;

·       The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and

·       The Protection of Children from Harm.

Consideration

Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and heard the oral representations at the meeting virtually and in person from the Applicants and an Licensing Authority.

The Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises by the Applicant, in respect of Pizza Hut 195 – 195a East India Dock Road London E14 0EA for late night refreshments. The Applicant were seeking the following:

Late night refreshments

Monday to Sunday 23:00 hours to 05:00 hours (the following day)

Opening times

Monday to Sunday 23:00 hours to 05:00 hours (the following day)

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

Paragraph 10.13 of the Secretary of State’s Guidance under S182 of the Licensing Act 2003 says that that Act “gives the licensing authority power to make decisions about the hours during which premises can conduct licensable activities as part of the implementation of its licensing policy statement. Licensing authorities are best placed to make decisions about appropriate opening hours in their areas based on their local knowledge and in consultation with responsible authorities.”

Paragraph 14.51 of the same Guidance says, “With regard to licensing hours, the Government acknowledges that different licensing approaches may be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives in different areas. The 2003 Act gives the licensing authority power to make decisions regarding licensed opening hours as part of the implementation of its licensing policy statement and licensing authorities are best placed to make such decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities.” 

The Sub-Committee noted the evidence of Ms. Driver from the Licensing Authority, that the premises sits directly beneath a large complex of residential units and the outside area was fenced off directly facing the roadside. The Sub-Committee noted the concerns that any collection by customers or delivery drivers was more likely to be accessed to the rear of the property. The Sub-Committee noted that the rear of the property was a highly residential area overlooking a residential block including residential properties all along Suzannah Street, a narrow nearby street.

The Sub-Committee noted concerns about mopeds causing noise nuisance to residents from persons. The Sub-Committee were concerned about the 

The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s agreement to a reduction in the hours, if the Sub-Committee considered this to be reasonable.

The Sub-Committee noted from pages 76 and 77 of the Agenda papers, that a number of other premises  ...  view the full decision text for item 5.

The Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee (“the Sub-Committee”) considered an application by Mr Arif Jivraj and JJ & Team Limited(the Applicant) for a new premises licence under section 18(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Pizza Hut, 195-194a East India Dock Road, London E14 0EA.

Applicant

Mr Jivraj addressed the concerns expressed in the representations made against the application:

·       There were several premises in the vicinity which were operating similar licences.

·       The business would only be operating as a delivery service, so noise and disturbance would be minimal, with delivery drivers rather than patrons attending the premises.

·       Noise disturbance to residents would be mitigated by using only the front entrance for delivery drivers. The rear entrance would not be in use.

The Sub-Committee’s questions were answered and responded to by the Applicant as follows:

The Sub-Committee was concerned with regards to mopeds ‘coming and going’ and causing noise nuisance to residents from persons attending the premises beyond the licensed hours for late night refreshments. The Sub-Committee agreed that if it were to operate twenty four hours, this would set a precedent to other businesses in the vicinity, and there could be potential risk of public nuisance.

The Applicant explained that there were other premises operating until 02:00 hours, and if the Sub-Committee felt that this was a concern, the Applicant would be willing to amend the application to reflect these hours.

The Sub-Committee noted the Applicant’s agreement to reduced hours, if the Sub-Committee agreed this was reasonable in upholding the licensing objectives.

There was designated parking, which was away from the premises. Delivery drivers would not be permitted to drive right up to the premises. Mopeds would not be parked close to the bus stop nor on the red route.

The Applicant had a good relationship with the neighbours and residents and explained that there had been no history of noise nuisance. Measures had been put in place which included the communication of behaviour expectations to staff and delivery partners, working with the delivery partners, and reporting everything in writing, as well as notices being displayed inside and outside the premises.

Licensing Authority

Ms. Driver expressed concerns that the premises sits directly beneath a large complex of residential units and the premises are directly next to a busy main road. There were concerns that any collection by customers or delivery drivers was more likely to be accessed at the rear of the property, as the front entrance sits on a busy main road, which is a red route and a busy bus route. The rear of the property faced a highly residential area including residential properties all along Suzannah Street,  a narrow adjacent street. .

Ms Driver was concerned that noise disturbance from mopeds coming “in and out” was not addressed by other premises in the area having similar operating hours. There was a fear that if the Sub-Committee granted the application, it would set a precedent for other nearby businesses to operate twenty-four hours.

Consideration

Each application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

The Council’s Licensing Act 2003 Sub-Committee (“the Sub-Committee”) considered an application by Mr Filip Puckza and Ms Bianca Whiskey (the Applicant) for a new premises licence under section 18(3) of the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of Havens Yard Ltd Arch 410 Haven Mews St Pauls Way, London E3 4AG.

Applicant

Mr Phillip Puckza, the Designated Premises Supervisor, presented the business as a new venture, and the application as one made together with his business partner Bianca Whiskey. He confirmed that they will operate as a restaurant. Mr Puckza presented that the Responsible Authority’s issues were unfounded.

Mr Puckza explained to the Sub-Committee that the number of covers were a little overstated with regard to the outdoor plan, and that the number of patrons would be far less than stated.

Traffic marshals would be available from Friday to Sundays and any crime and disorder would be reported. No previous reports of incidents had been lodged .

Ms Whiskey assured the Sub-Committee that there would be a hotline for residents if there were any issues. She pointed out that the residents lived behind the arch. Ms Whiskey represented that there would be CCTV and street marshals to address possible noise nuisance. The previous owner had not reported any crime reported as ascertained following a Freedom of Information request that had been made.

During the hearing the Sub-Committee’s questions were answered and responded to by the Applicant as follows:

·       The Applicant was willing to reduce the hours to 23.00hrs, if the Sub-Committee thought this be appropriate, and that they would be serving gourmet food. Mr Puckza had been a successful DPS in Westminster and was very experienced.

·       Noise limiters would be installed and the Applicant was willing to amend the number of people permitted inside and outside the premises

·       They would stop serving alcohol at 22.00hrs with 1 hour to disperse.

The Sub-Committee had concerns that the Applicant was involved in the nearby premises at Arch 411, in respect of which Ms Bianca Whiskey was the business rate payer of which the following was brought to attention at the review.

Ms Whiskey confirmed that she was connected to the previous applicant and that she had worked for them. Mr Puckza and herself were former employees at Arch 411, who had decided to venture on their own.

The Sub-Committee noted Ms Whiskey’s involvement with the business at Arch 411, as the director of the company operating those premises, as well as having been bar manager over there. 

The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Applicant was not properly addressing the concerns raised. Mr Puckza explained that Ms Whiskey was a different person, that they both wanted to ensure that the premises was run properly and wanted to accommodate the residents.

Licensing Authority

Ms Driver presented that the premises were off St Pauls Way within a railway arch in Haven Mews, a residential area, accessed through a yard gate. There were licensed premises situated in Unit/Arch 411 next door, which had operated as licensed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Sub Committee may be requested to extend the decision deadline for applications to be considered at forthcoming meetings due to the volume of applications requiring a hearing.  Where necessary, details will be provided at the meeting.

Members agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the applications below to the dates stated; Licensing applications were extended due to the impact of the pandemic, and were adjourned under regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.

T

The meeting ended at 8.10 p.m.

Members agreed to extend the decision deadlines for the applications below to the dates stated; Licensing applications were extended due to the impact of the pandemic, and were adjourned under regulation 11 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, it was in the public interest to do so, and did not require representation from parties to the applications.

T

The meeting ended at 8.10 p.m.