Agenda item
Application for a New Premise Licence for Havens Yard Ltd Arch 410 Haven Mews St Pauls Way, London E3 4AG
- Meeting of Licensing Sub Committee, Tuesday, 22nd November, 2022 6.30 p.m. (Item 6.)
- View the background to item 6.
Decision:
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
Minutes:
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 premises with on and off sales. However, noise disturbance to local residents and operating in breach of the licence and authorised hours, had led to an earlier review of the premises licence for the business at Arch 411. That review led to the on sales part of the licence being removed.
Ms Driver felt that another application next door to Arch 411 was likely to reignite the issues which had led to the review of the premises licence regarding Arch 411. Ms Driver felt that the hours sought were far too late, and she observed that there were no other premises operating so late in this area. She was concerned that, as had happened with Arch 411 next door, additional traffic arising from patrons coming and going would be attracted to the area, with the same attendant problems which had manifested as stated earlier regarding Arch 411.
Ms Driver was concerned that the Applicant was linked to the previous applicant, that the hours applied for were similar, and that private events might be held contrary to licensing requirements. Ms Driver referred the Sub-Committee to the plan, indicating that the kitchen was too small. There was concern with the outdoor plan on page 130 in the agenda pack. A visit had taken place previously, when Mr Puckza was a Bar Manager, there was concern that he was linked to the preivious applicant. Ms Driver was not confident that this premises would not be mismanaged in the circumstances set out, and invited the Sub-Committee to refuse this application.
Metropolitan Police
Michael Rice had concerns about how the Applicant would operate the premises. From eight years experience, he had seen the damage caused by anti-social behaviour. The nearest transportation would be fifteen minutes’ walk through Mile End Park which was dangerous. He was concerned that noise would disturb local residents. He was concerned that having ninety people outside would be result in disturbance to local residents, and that not enough precautions had been taken to protect the local community from this.
He was also concerned that it would be difficult to report crime and disorder, given the links between the Applicant and Arch 411, where police had been refused entry on previous occasions. There had been urination on the streets. He referred to the issues which led to the review of the premises licence for Arch 411, and asked the Sub-Committee to refuse the application.
Decision
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered all the evidence before them and heard the oral representations at the meeting virtually and in person from the Applicants the Licensing Authority and the Metropolitan Police. The Applicant were seeking the following:
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.
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.
That the application for a New Premises Licence for Arch 410 Haven Mews, St Pauls Way, London E3 4AG be REFUSED
Supporting documents:
-
Haven Yard cover report - 22 Nov 22, item 6.
PDF 356 KB
-
Haven Yard Appendices Only - 22 Nov 22, item 6.
PDF 5 MB