Issue - meetings

Application to review a premises licence.

RECEIVED an application made by the Licensing Authority for a review of the Premises Licence held by Ms Melek Akgun at the premises known as and situated at Kosem Restaurant & Meza Bar, 500-504 Hertford Road, Enfield EN3.

NOTED

1.    The introductory statement of Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, including the following points:

a.  The application was to review the Premises Licence and was made by the Licensing Authority.

b.  The application was set out in Annex 03 to the report.

c.  Additional information to the Licensing Authority representation was set out on page 33 – 38 of the agenda pack.

d.  It was confirmed that the Licensing Authority now sought revocation of this licence.

e.  Subsequent to publication of the agenda, the Licensing Authority provided further additional information by email dated 28.10.13, circulated in advance of the meeting.

2.    The opening statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, including the following points:

a.  She requested to submit further additional written information relating to the weekend of 2 / 3 November. This was not agreed to be received by the Chairman.

b.  The initial review application was made because of noise complaints, noise abatement notice, and breaches of permitted hours at the premises.

c.  The initial review application sought to reduce the licensed hours for regulated entertainment and to amend/add further conditions.

d.  However, subsequent to the initial review application, further complaints were received, bringing the total number to 20, and the noise abatement notice was breached.

e.  Offences had continued despite Ms Akgun, the licence holder and DPS, knowing that this hearing was pending.

f.  Ms Akgun was interviewed under caution on 4 November 2013. Up to that point, it was considered that her responsibilities as licence holder had not been taken seriously and that she had been slow to act.

g.  The stage had now been moved from the window and a board put up, but there had been insufficient time to assess whether the changes had any effect.

h.  Officers had also been informed that musicians had been sacked, but the responsibility was with the licence holder to ensure that music volume was appropriate.

i.  The current ownership of the premises dated from April, and all the alleged offences listed had all occurred since the opening night on 9 June 2013.

j.  Officers had come to the conclusion that this licence should be revoked based on the prevention of public nuisance and the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objectives.

k.  The same problems had continued over five months, despite letters and visits: officers had no confidence in the licence holder, and considered that residents had suffered enough.

l.  The premises was located within the Enfield Highway Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) Area, where there was a greater occurrence of crime and disorder, and there were many residential properties.

m.  There had also been breaches of hours approved under Planning permission (Ref TP/92/1037/1).

n.  Even on the previous weekend, in the early hours of 3 November  ...  view the full minutes text for item 469