Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES 

King of Wings

57 High Street 

Hornchurch 

RM11 1T

APPLICANT

Tihuna Duha

Details of the application

This application for a premises licence is made by Raztina Ltd under section 17 of the Licensing Act 2003.  The application was received by Havering’s Licensing Authority on 10th June 2026.

The premises is located at the junction of Billet Lane and High Street in a row of purpose built ground floor commercial outlets.  The shops appear to have residential properties located above them.  The area might therefore be considered one of mixed use.  The premises primarily operates as a takeaway chicken restaurant but contains limited seating for customers to consume their meals.

The application seeks to provide late night refreshment seven days a week from 23:00 to 03:00 the day following.  Section 14 of the application provides the following clarification: 

• Provision of late-night refreshment including takeaway and limited indoor and

outdoor seating.

The premises plan supplied with the application does not include any reference to an outside area, presumably to be located to the front of the premises, an area which appears to be the public highway.  To date the Licensing Authority has not received an application for a pavement licence to authorise the placing of tables and chairs on the public highway.

The premises is located in one of Havering’s cumulative impact zones, the Hornchurch CIZ, as defined in Havering’s licensing policy. The application makes no reference to the Hornchurch CIZ and offers no challenge in the form of a policy rebuttal.

Section 9 of Havering’s licensing policy addresses the Hornchurch CIZ and includes the following paragraph at 9.4:

• On the basis of the above evidence the Licensing Authority is of the view that the number, type and density of premises selling alcohol for consumption on and off the premises and the provision of late night refreshment around the High Street is having

a cumulative impact and undermining the licensing objectives. It is likely that granting further licences would be inconsistent with the authority’s duty to promote the licensing objectives and a cumulative impact policy has been adopted in this area.

Section 18 of the application contains several steps the applicant is willing to implement to promote the licensing objectives.  From a licensing perspective these proposals appear ill defined and, if they were to become licence conditions, would be largely unenforceable thereby negating the purpose of the condition.

During the application’s consultation period responsible authorities engaged with the applicant outlining their concerns; however, the applicant was of the following view:

• Whilst we respect your concerns, we remain of the view that the application is

appropriate as submitted and do not intend to amend the hours requested.  In the circumstances, we would be grateful if the application could now proceed to a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing for determination. We look forward to presenting our case to the Committee.

There were no representations against this application from any residents or businesses in the immediate area or beyond.

There were three representations against this application from responsible authorities, namely Havering’s Licensing Authority, Havering’s Environmental Health / Environmental Protection team and the Metropolitan Police.  The concerns of all three responsible authorities relates to cumulative impact and the premises’ intended hours of operation.

Determination of application for a new premises licence

1. The Sub-Committee had considered an application for a premises licence for

King of Wings, situated at 57 High Street, Hornchurch, RM11 1TP.

2. Representations against the application had been received from

a. The Metropolitan Police,

b. The Council’s Noise team, and

c. The Council’s Licensing Team.

3. There were no representations against this application from residents.

4. The Sub-Committee must promote the licensing objectives and must have

regard to the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance created under section

182 of the Licensing Act 2003 when determining an application for a new

premises licence. Where relevant representations are made, the authority must hold a hearing and then take such steps, as it considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives. These steps may include rejecting the application or modifying the conditions to the extent that the authority considers necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives or granting the application.

Decision: refused

5. Having read all written representations and heard oral representations the

Sub-Committee decided to refuse the application on the basis that granting

the licence will undermine the licencing objectives.  

6. In arriving at their decision, the Sub-Committee was mindful of the Secretary of State’s guidance which states;

a. 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 take into account 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.

b. The authority’s determination should be evidence-based, justified as

being appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives and

proportionate to what it is intended to achieve.

c. The conditions that are appropriate for the promotion of the licensing

objectives should emerge initially from the risk assessment carried out

by a prospective licence.

7.  The Sub-Committee was mindful of the council’s licensing policy which states;

a. For areas where a cumulative impact policy is adopted, it creates a

rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that

will add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused unless

the applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises

involved will not add to the cumulative impact and not impact adversely

on the promotion of the licensing objectives.

b. It must be stressed that the rebuttable presumption created by the

cumulative impact policy does not relieve responsible authorities or other

persons of the need to make relevant representations. If there are no

representations, the Licensing Authority must grant the application

consistent with the operating schedule submitted.

c. The cumulative impact policy is not absolute. The circumstances of each

application within the cumulative impact area will be considered upon its

own merits and the Licensing Authority shall permit licences and

certificates that are unlikely to add to the cumulative impact and not

impact adversely on the licensing objectives.

d. In completing the operating schedule, applicants are expected to have

regard to the licensing policy which sets out the expectations of the

Authority as to the steps that are appropriate for the promotion of the

licensing objectives.

e. Where specific policies apply in the area (for example, a Cumulative

Impact Policy), applicants are also expected to:

• Demonstrate an understanding of how the Policy impacts on their

application, • Identify any measures they will take to mitigate the impact,

and 

• Confirm why they consider their application should be an exception to

the Policy.

Responsible Authorities

8. The Sub-Committee read and heard the written representations of all three

responsible authorities and found that by in large they all shared the same

concerns in that;

a. The premises will attract the nighttime economy customers from

neighbouring premises in the area who are licenced to sell alcohol. This

will cause late-night drinkers congregating in and around the premises.

The result of this is that it is likely that there will be intoxicated patrons

congregating outside the premises who are prone to alcohol-fuelled

verbal aggression, fights, and low-level street altercations. The large

crowds will also cause noise and disturbance from customers waiting for

food, and the applicant has not provided how he will manage delivery

drivers who may also cause a noise nuisance.

b. The Council’s licensing policy creates a presumption to refuse the

application unless the applicant can demonstrate that the granting of the

premises licence will not add to the existing issues in the area. The

applicant failed to rebut the presumption as the operating schedule lists

vague conditions that are unenforceable and not robust to address the

issues raised by the responsible authorities.

c. The applicant chose not to engage with the responsible authorities

during the consultation period and has not demonstrated an

understanding of the licensing regime and the council’s licensing policy.

Applicant

9. Turning to the applicant, the applicant’s main submission was that the premises is part of a large franchise who will provide training, however no further details were provided of what training will be given, how often, and how it will deal with the issues of customers of the nighttime economy. He also added that they will consider utilising SIA door staff but again no explanation on what days, for how long etc.

Deliberations 

10. The Sub-Committee found that the applicant did not understand the licensing regime, the importance of an operating schedule and the council’s licensing policy, let alone rebut the presumption of to refuse the application. The applicant could not identify or explain what the four licensing objectives are, what the council’s licensing policy states regarding the Hornchurch area, or the reasoning of the conditions listed in the operating schedule that he completed. The Sub-Committee found that by granting the licence, with or without modification, the premises licence will undermine the licensing objectives. 

11. The Sub-Committee found it regrettable that the applicant chose not to engage with the responsible authorities during the consultation period. The Secretary of State’s guidance says that all parties are expected to work together in partnership to ensure that the licensing  objectives are promoted collectively.

By engaging with the responsible authorities, the applicant could possibly have

agreed more robust conditions, understood the licensing regime and council’s

licensing policy better and perhaps allay the concerns of the responsible

authorities.

12. The Sub-Committee took into account that the Council’s licensing policy

emphasises that applicants must demonstrate a commitment to a high standard

of management. The applicant’s operating schedule and representations at the

hearing did not demonstrate such standards. 

13. The Sub-Committee also accepted the representations of the three responsible authorities in full. The Sub-Committee were mindful of the fact that responsible authorities are their main source of advice, in particular the police, who are their main source of advice on crime and disorder.

14. Finally, the Sub-Committee considered the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits but found again the only step to promote the licensing

objectives is to refuse the application.

Right of Appeal

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision. 

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may: 

1. Dismiss the appeal; or

2. Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made

by the Sub Committee; or 

3. Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with

the direction of the Court; and 

4. Make an order for costs as it sees fit.