Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed all those present, introduced the Members, and explained the order of the meeting.

Councillor Yusuf Cicek attended for consideration of the following items set out in the minutes below:

Deniz Off Licence, 269 Fore Street, Edmonton, N18 (Minute No.774 below refers)

Club 303, 1 Jute Lane, Enfield, EN3 (Minute No.775 below refers)

Councillor Cicek then had to leave the hearing due to ill-health and was replaced by Councillor Andreas Constantinides for the following item:

Maze Inn, 7 Chase Side, Southgate, N14 (Minute No.776 below refers)

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.

NOTED that there were no declarations of interest in respect of any of the items on the agenda.

This was re-affirmed following the arrival of Councillor Constantinides.

Application for a new premises licence.

RECEIVED application made by Mr Javad Kohansal for a new Premises Licence for the premises known as and situated at Hideout Café, 225 Ordnance Road, Enfield, EN3.

Mark Galvayne, Principal Licensing Officer, advised those present that this application had now been withdrawn. The matter had been settled in advance of this meeting and representations had been withdrawn.

Application to review a premises licence.

RECEIVED application made by the Licensing Authority for a review of the Premises Licence for the premises known as and situated at Deniz Off Licence, 269 Fore Street, Edmonton, N18.

NOTED

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

a.  The review had been requested by the Licensing Authority, as set out in the agenda papers previously circulated.

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

a.  The review is made on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm. The authority considers that it is appropriate, for the promotion of the licensing objectives, to revoke the licence.

b.The licence had been subject to previous reviews and variations.

c.The history of licence breaches set out in full in the background information and visit history which included the sale of non-duty paid goods and failures in underage test purchases. Due to the history of illegal activities as documented, it was deemed that the only appropriate course of action would be the revocation of the licence.

3.   The opening statement of PC Martyn Fisher, Metropolitan Police Service, including the following points:

      a. The Metropolitan Police service fully supported the application of the Licensing Authority to revoke the licence. The Premises Licence holder had failed to demonstrate confidence in meeting the licensing conditions.

4.   The following questions arose:

      a. Councillor Levy questioned the repeated episodes of non-duty paid goods and the licence holder’s ability to meet the conditions of the licence, and the actions which had previously been taken by the Licensing Authority. In response Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, outlined the minor variations which had previously been applied to the licence. All appropriate conditions were already attached to the premises licence. Breaches of the licence continued to occur.

5.   The opening statement of Mr. G. Hodkinson, legal representative for Mr Koca, the Premises Licence Holder, including the following points:

      a. Mr Koca had not realised the seriousness of his position until the hearing today. A Magistrates Court hearing was scheduled to take place on 26 March 2014. There were 8 charges of which Mr Koca has pleaded guilty to 7. The charges were set out in full to the hearing and related to the sale of non-duty paid cigarettes and tobacco in small quantities on a number of separate occasions. Mr Koca had pleaded not guilty to the sale of counterfeit alcohol. Mr Koca has 3 employees and 75% of the income from the premises was in relation to alcohol and tobacco.

b.The legal representative sought an adjournment to the review of the licence until the Magistrates Hearing had taken place on 26 March 2014. It was also stated that should a decision be taken today to revoke the premises licence it would prevent an appropriate re-organisation of the business and the ability to continuing to offer work to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 774.

Application to review a premises licence following closure order.

(Expedited review application).

RECEIVED a review of the Premises Licence following a closure order for the premises known as and situated at Club 303, 1 Jute Lane, Enfield, EN3.

NOTED

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

a.  The Council had received, the previous day, an application to change the premises licence holder from Mr Islamoglu to Vanessa Short.

b.That the premises had been subject to a closure order issued by the Metropolitan Police Service and upheld by the Magistrates Court. The Licensing Sub-Committee now had to hold a hearing to consider the closure order, the court order and any relevant representations. Oral representations would be presented to the Sub-Committee.

2.   The opening statement of Mr R. Clark legal representative on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, including the following points:

a.  That the incident in question had taken place on 1 February 2014. Attention was drawn to the witness statement of PC Martyn Fisher, Licensing Enforcement Officer for Enfield Borough Police, as set out in the documentation. The details of the incident were set out in full to those present including: the police had been called by a customer; a large number of police had been assigned to the incident; the incident had occurred 2 hours after the closing time of the premises and 2.5 hours after the sale of alcohol should have ceased; only 6 cameras out of 18 had been working and none had been recording so no CCTV footage was available; approximately 20-30 people had been involved; there had been no calls to the police or ambulance service from the Club management; the door staff had not taken an active role in resolving the issue. The police had been forced to employ a tazer to settle the incident. There had appeared to be 2 incidents with the second arising from the arrest of a male on the premises. There had been failings by the Club management to allow customers to remain on the premises 2 hours after the closure time.

b.Attention was drawn to the detail contained within the police incident printout sheets contained within the written documentation.

c.The Metropolitan Police Service were not seeking a revocation of the licence but were seeking restricted hours to 23.00 hours and if this was not agreed then a number of changes to the licence conditions were being sought.

d.In summary the Metropolitan Police were concerned at the Management failings at the premises; the lack of CCTV footage; the hours of operation; the lack of control of the door staff and other premises staff; out-of-hours noise disturbance; and, that the premises required drastic remodelling and restriction of hours.

e.PC Martyn Fisher added that a male had been unconscious with a head injury, no ambulance had been called by the Club which was of grave concern. The male later disappeared. Officers had employed 2 tazers to control the situation. Urgent Police assistance had been required. Following the initial entry of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 775.

Application to review a premises licence following closure order.

(Expedited review application.)

RECEIVED review of Premises Licence following closure order for the premises known as and situated at Maze Inn, 7 Chase Side, Southgate, N14.

NOTED

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

a.  That the premises had been subject to a closure order issued by the Metropolitan Police Service and upheld by the Magistrates Court. The Licensing Sub-Committee now had to hold a hearing to consider the closure order, the court order and any relevant representations. Oral representations would be presented to the Sub-Committee.

b.Prior to this review hearing limited agreement had been reached between the Police and the premises as follows:

·       Agreement to a modified condition 18

·       Agreement to a modified condition 20

·       The Police had requested an amendment to condition 25 – not agreed

·       The Police had requested a new condition 31 – not agreed

c.The Licensing Sub-Committee was therefore asked to consider these outstanding issues.

d.In response to issues raised by a representative of the operator at the premises it was noted that a written representation had been received but that it could not be considered today. An oral representation could be heard today.

2.   The opening statement of Mr R. Clark, legal representative on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, including the following points:

      a. Attention was drawn to page 225 of the documentation setting out the revised conditions sought by the Police:

      Condition 18 revised with the word “immediately” inserted – this had been agreed.

      Condition 20 revised to include days of regulated entertainment and to increase the number of door supervisors to 4 on these days after 22.30 hours – this had been agreed

      Condition 25 – revised wording was being sought to change the no new entry time to after midnight on Friday and Saturday or any day when regulated entertainment takes place after 21.00 hours - not agreed.

      An additional condition that all drinks shall be decanted into polycarbonate containers when sold or supplied – not agreed.

      b. The reasons for the current closure were highlighted and attention drawn to the police documentation as previously circulated. The incident had given grounds for concern. It was recognised that the premises did not have a history of such incidents or bad management. The requested conditions were felt to be necessary for greater control and safety at the premises.

      c. A doorman at the premises had witnessed that a glass had been used in the attack but this was disputed by the premises management.

3.   Questions were invited in the light of the opening statements and the following points arose:

      a. Councillors questioned how the use of polycarbonate containers would work in practice if implemented after a specified time. The public safety issues raised were acknowledged. It was noted that such a condition would require the premises to re-educate its customers.

4.   The opening statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including the following points:

a.  The Licensing Authority supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 776.

To receive and agree the minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 20 November 2013 and 15 January 2014.

RECEIVED the minutes of the meetings held on 20 November 2013 and 15 January 2014.

AGREED that the minutes of the meetings held on 20 November 2013 and 15 January 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.