Councillor Levy as Chair in the absence of Councillor Bond welcomed all those present and explained the order of the meeting.

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

NOTED there were no declarations of interest.

Application for a variation of a premises licence.

RECEIVED the application made by Mr Ismail Koca for the premises situated at Kosk Restaurant, 269 Hertford Road, London, N9 7ES for a Variation of a Premises Licence.

NOTED

1.    The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.  The application for consideration was for variation of a premises licence.

b.  Kosk Restaurant was currently licensed to open until 00:00 latest with supply of alcohol until 23:45 and late night refreshment 23:00 to 00:00.

c.  Mr Ismail Koca was the premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor and was seeking an extension of opening hours and late night refreshment until 05:00 daily.

d.  A new plan had also been submitted to reflect the restaurant layout.

e.  The premises was located in the Edmonton Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP) Area; therefore there was an automatic presumption against grant of applications outside the CIP core hours. As a result the Police and the Licensing Authority objected to the application in respect of the hours only. The updated plan has been accepted.

f.  No additional conditions were proposed by the Licensing Authority nor offered by the applicant.

g.  It was for the applicant to put forward mitigation and reasons why the premises should be an exception from the CIP policy.

2.    The introductory statement of Charlotte Palmer, Licensing Enforcement Officer, including:

a.  The premises was located in the Edmonton CIP area, and the location was already an area of concern regarding crime and disorder and public nuisance.

b.  The onus was on the applicant to show why an application outside the CIP policy would have no negative cumulative impact in the locality, but the applicant had offered no additional conditions in the operating schedule.

c.  The premises was located in a mixed commercial and residential area. There were residential properties above the premises and in nearby side streets. There was concern that residents could be disturbed by noise from people arriving at and leaving the premises during the early hours of the morning, at a time when ambient noise levels were reduced.

d.  The representation advised that complaints had already been received regarding noise from this premises.

e.  The complaints and breaches of conditions had led to a lack of confidence in those running the premises.

f.  It had taken almost nine months for an updated plan to be submitted. The premises licence holder had been far too slow to act despite knowing that it was a legal requirement that the plans be accurate.

g.  The manager knew that there was an application pending and that officers would be visiting the premises on the evening of 16 June 2017, yet breaches of the licence were still discovered.

h.  A further officer visit was made on Friday 14 July 2017 and the same conditions were being breached. At 21:40 eight people were sitting outside and 25 people in the back, which was a breach of Condition 6. A Think 25 poster was still not displayed, which was a breach of Condition 11. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.